ICGA's 2015 World Computer Chess Championship/Events

[Michel]

even without book/tb and running on a cell phone, sf (or komodo) could win this pathetic event…

I am always amazed how effortlessly you use circular logic.

SF should not participate because it is a weak tournament and it is a weak tournament since strong engines like SF do not participate .

[Wolfgang]

I hope that CEGT starts testing SF6 for that 40/120 list soon.
Better yet, the latest dev version with the SMP improvements.

Why should we test "SMP improvements" for a single-core-list?

[Wolfgang]

...
CEGT tests are run on a rather weak four-core machine....

...4770 four-core piece of garbage...

hardware: Intel i7-4770k @ 3.4GHZ / 12GB RAM

is "rather weak" or "garbage"? Wow, what machine do you use for your tests? Do you test at all? Or only trolling a bit? Ridiculous...

[Laskos]

...
CEGT tests are run on a rather weak four-core machine....

...4770 four-core piece of garbage...

hardware: Intel i7-4770k @ 3.4GHZ / 12GB RAM

is "rather weak" or "garbage"? Wow, what machine do you use for your tests? Do you test at all? Or only trolling a bit? Ridiculous...

From CEGT site:
"Given the different hardware from testers we agreed to adapt to AMD64X2 4200+ for 40/120 and 40/20 and 2 GHz Pentium CPU for 40/4."

So the standard 4 minute really means something like 1-1.3 minute on i7-4770.

[Henk]

Stockfish can never be worldchampion for it has no author. I even go further and say an engine may only have one author. Or perhaps add more categories. One for large groups, one for small groups, one for single author and one for quasi clones.

Or perhaps one should even add the amount of processing power they have available to tune there engines.

[IWB]

even without book/tb and running on a cell phone, sf (or komodo) could win this pathetic event…

Do you know this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

I am that long in Comp chess that I know that sooner or later every No. 1 will be humbled ...

Regards
Ingo

[IWB]

Stockfish can never be worldchampion for it has no author. I even go further and say an engine may only have one author. Or perhaps add more categories. One for large groups, one for small groups, one for single author and one for quasi clones.

Or perhaps one should even add the amount of processing power they have available to tune there engines.

For what its worth.
SF has three authors mentioned at startup of the engine (Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona Kiiski). That is what the ICGA would look at (I assume and that seems reasonable to me). If the SF team wants to change that they have to change the code - with all consequences regarding the common agreement for a possible WC!


Regards
Ingo

[lucasart]

even without book/tb and running on a cell phone, sf (or komodo) could win this pathetic event…

I am always amazed how effortlessly you use circular logic.

SF should not participate because it is a weak tournament and it is a weak tournament since strong engines like SF do not participate .

There already is a real world championship, and that's TCEC. So why would we need a fake one ? Especially an OTB one. It's the ICGA that needs SF (to regain some of their long lost credibility), not the other way around. Just look how pathetic they are: it's now every 2 years instead of every year, and even like that they only managed to attract 6 participants in 2013

[Michel]

even without book/tb and running on a cell phone, sf (or komodo) could win this pathetic event…

I am always amazed how effortlessly you use circular logic.

SF should not participate because it is a weak tournament and it is a weak tournament since strong engines like SF do not participate .

There already is a real world championship, and that's TCEC. So why would we need a fake one ? Especially an OTB one. It's the ICGA that needs SF (to regain some of their long lost credibility), not the other way around. Just look how pathetic they are: it's now every 2 years instead of every year, and even like that they only managed to attract 6 participants in 2013

You keep repeating similar things over and over again (how often can you write the word "pathetic"?) without answering any of the counterarguments that have been raised.
But at least you have now silently dropped some false statements concerning the ICGA tournament which you stated for a fact before.

[Wolfgang]

...
From CEGT site:
"Given the different hardware from testers we agreed to adapt to AMD64X2 4200+ for 40/120 and 40/20 and 2 GHz Pentium CPU for 40/4."

So the standard 4 minute really means something like 1-1.3 minute on i7-4770.

The quote from our site is outdated and should be deleted resp. corrected.

Correct is:
40/120
"time control: 40/120'+20/60'+20'+10" (adapted to AMD-X4 @ 3.0GHZ)"
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating120.htm
according to our benchmark this is 40/80'+20/40'+15'+10"
on the i7-4770k

40/20
here the quote is correct, TC is adapted to 40/20 on the AMD64X2 4200+ which means 40/8 or 40/7 on an i7-4770k accoring to our benchmark.

40/4
Here we make NO adaption to any hardware and play with 40/3 repeated (Gerhards and my hardware for our blitz list is nearly equally fast). My i7 is not often used for blitz, but you are right, Kai. If it would be used I COULD play with 40/1 or even less. But this is to "bullet-like" for me/us.

"2 GHz Pentium CPU for 40/4." is really completely outdated and comes from the beginning of CEGT about 10 or more years ago...