Igca Rules are not coming from Mount Sinai

[stegemma]

...I work on Crafty regularly. And it is improving. Without copying the code of others. I knew I was not going to catch deep thought / deep blue, as I understood their hardware advantage and how no general-purpose computer was going to catch up for MANY years.

This is not about jealousy. That is just your stupidity showing up...

There is an aspect of competition that is actually about competing. And the sense of self-satisfaction one obtains using one's own work, even if you don't win... You probably won't understand that. Some of us do...

I fully subscribe all of what you've said. Anybody can satisfy himself with the pleasure that give him/her copying other one's chess software... and then say "wow!!! how a good programmer i am!!!" the same as anybody is free to masturbate himself reading xxx books (or watching xxx video on the web). I'm one of the ones who like the old way to do both kind of stuffs.

[hgm]

I wrote the below elsewhere and I did not change my mind overnight.

Doesn't really mention anything about marathon's.

The marathon analogy very clearly shows that your 'vision' is totally off-base. The invention of motorized transport has made walking as a means of long-distance transportation obsolete more than 150 years ago. Yet marathon contests are enormoulsy popular even today. Athletes train themself silly for improving their performance on it, even though they know it won't have the slightest effect on mass transportation whether they runitin 2:15 or 1:59. And no one is suggesting it should be allowed to take the bus during a marathon, because that is more modern and efficient.

[Rebel]

I wrote the below elsewhere and I did not change my mind overnight.

Doesn't really mention anything about marathon's.

The marathon analogy very clearly shows that your 'vision' is totally off-base. The invention of motorized transport has made walking as a means of long-distance transportation obsolete more than 150 years ago. Yet marathon contests are enormoulsy popular even today. Athletes train themself silly for improving their performance on it, even though they know it won't have the slightest effect on mass transportation whether they runitin 2:15 or 1:59. And no one is suggesting it should be allowed to take the bus during a marathon, because that is more modern and efficient.

Your analogy fails. The marathon is about the limits of the human body, (computer) chess is about the limits of the human mind. You don't say to Kasparov: you are disqualified because you have better genes. You don't say to Hsu: Deep Blue is disqualified because it has an unfair hardware advantage. Chess and computer chess is about the best chess possible.

[hgm]

This is where you are wrong. The WCCC is not about the best Chess anymore than the marathon is about the fastest transportation, or the FIDE World title is about the best Chess. It is about the best Chess programmer.

If it was about the best Chess, humans would have registered in the time where even I could beat the best computer. But having humans do the moves was considered cheating in those days. It has really never been about the best Chess.

The problem we currently face is not a consequence of progress at all, but of the unnatural situation that the strongest program was public domain, and not claimed by anyone. So that every clown now can think "hey, there is a cheap World title for me". I just change a few letters of code, preferably insignificant code so that I cannot wreck too much, or just do some safe code optimizations that do not require me to know what I am doing, and bingo! I am the best, I am the greatest! And the beautiful thing is that I did not even have to work for it. I just took the bus, and did not even pay for the ticket...

This situation will no doubt go away, as true Chess programmers who are capable of making progress on their own will inevitably catch up, and the best program will be no longer open source.

[Rebel]

This is where you are wrong. The WCCC is not about the best Chess anymore than the marathon is about the fastest transportation, or the FIDE World title is about the best Chess. It is about the best Chess programmer.

If the WCCC was about the best chess programmer then all should play on equal hardware.

[Harvey Williamson]

If the WCCC was about the best chess programmer then all should play on equal hardware.

Wow ed, I actually agree with you The WCSC which also takes place next week is on loan = hardware.

[hgm]

If the WCCC was about the best chess programmer then all should play on equal hardware.

Well, there always has been a fair amount of pressure to do that. In the days there was a large disparity in hardware, it was split into a microprocessor and mainframe tournament.

There are also good arguments for allowing some variation in hardware. In the micro-processor days, the programs were non-portable and tailored to one specific architecture. Today we have SMP and clusters, and you have to be a talented programmer to harvest the power of that. There is no reason to discount the effort invested in that by the programmers just because some programs do not support SMP or cloud computing. That is their own fault.

So yes, perhaps my statement that it is about the best programmer was a bit too narrow, and I should have said that it was about the best construction team, to not exclude the occasional hardware freak. But, give or take a few GHz, at present times the turnament is basically on equal hardware: all use x64 CPUs. That some programs are able to use more than others is basically the merit of the programmer.

But all that is nitpicking. It is clear, however, that it never was not about the best Chess. Otherwise I could simply have bought a Rybka 3 years ago, and enter it, because I think we all agree that the best Chess was played by Rybka...

[BubbaTough]

If the WCCC was about the best chess programmer then all should play on equal hardware.

Wow ed, I actually agree with you The WCSC which also takes place next week is on loan = hardware.

We all know the WCCC is not a very good vehicle for determining the best of anything, no more than the World Cup/Superbowl determines the best football team. Simply not enough games; the rating lists, for all their problems, are the best mechanism for that. In my mind, the WCCC has/should have two goals: promotion of computer chess, and promotion of computer chess research. I personally think that hardware limitations, while they may seem more "fair", promote neither. Research into innovative hardware use, either algorithmiclly (it would be fun to see Crafty show up with the ability to use all its testing hardware in battle) or through specialized hardware design, seem better served by allowing arbitrary hardware. In addition, its more likely to capture the public imagination when massive hardware architectures compete, whether through dominance of massive hardware solutions, or through David vs. Goliath scenarios where a spunky little program beats a massively funded project.

I think part of the challenge for the WCCC and its driving organization is they do not have a good handle on their goals and objectives. This is understandable, since it is very natural to want something called the World Computer Chess Championship to be a vehicle for determining the best computer chess program(mer?). This is not, however, a mistake commonly made in the sports world. Things like fan enjoyment, funding, and promotion of the sport generally take precedence over all else, and appropriately so. Computer chess would be better served, in my opinion, if the organizers of the WCCC encouraged as much money and hardware and interesting story-lines as possible to be associated with the WCCC instead of worrying about fairness. Things like event promotion, game broadcasts, media interaction, etc., which are critical for the achievement of goal 1 (promotion of computer chess) are not given the appropriate attention, and all of these things also bring incidental benefit and encouragement to computer chess research (goal 2).

-Sam

[Harvey Williamson]

Things like event promotion, game broadcasts, media interaction, etc., which are critical for the achievement of goal 1 (promotion of computer chess) are not given the appropriate attention, and all of these things also bring incidental benefit and encouragement to computer chess research (goal 2).

-Sam

I agree again. I am sure the only live broadcasting will be done by a few of the competitors. I am only there for 2 days next week but will broadcast as much as I can while I am there. I am sure people like Hans van der Zijden will also do his best to broadcast games while playing. I doubt the ICGA will make any effort to broadcast the games of Hiarcs - even though we have paid 500 euros to enter. SMK also manages to broadcast Shredder games on his website.

[hgm]

This is not, however, a mistake commonly made in the sports world. Things like fan enjoyment, funding, and promotion of the sport generally take precedence over all else, and appropriately so.

Apparently you think commercialization of sports is a holy grail. This is rather debatable.

Fact is that the ICGA is an organization for and founded by Chess programmers, who like to have cozy get-togethers where they can have their programs play each other and exchange ideas. I don't think that is a mistake at all. What you think would be good for 'computer Chess' does not sound good for me at all. How would I benefit from this? What do I care how many fans there are? And if it is not good for me, it can't be good for computer Chess. So I think the mistake is yours.

I agree that broadcasting the tourney wouldbe a good thing. I just hope the ICGA did not bungle that. But my hopes are not very high. I still have the software available to set it up, in case nothing was organized at all. But it takes some time to set up a server, and partcicipants not using WinBoard (of which there fortunately are usually only a few) would not be able to use it without preparation.