Igca Rules are not coming from Mount Sinai

[hgm]

Let me guess: Another non-programmer?

[hgm]

Of course it is not a flaw of character, but it does mean you have no idea what you are talking about (no offence meant).

The ideas we are talking about here, which Chess programmers exchange, are all pretty simple ideas. Like:

*) When in check, you better look 1 halfmove further ahead than you would otherwise do (check extension)
*) Passed Pawns are worth more than non-passed Pawns, and the differece increases the closer they are to the promotion square
*) When a move doesn't look so interesting, (e.g. because it is a non-capture, so it doesn't immediately raise your score much), consider it less thoroughly, and only give it your full attention when the preliminary analysis reveals it to be better than you expected (LMR)
*) If you have the move, and the opponent cannot hurt you when you pass your turn, it is safe to assume you can use your move to at least postpone threats so deepyou missed them by 2 halfmoves. (Null-move pruning)
*) When a move is refuted, don't waste time on trying to refute it more heavily (alpha-beta)
*) Consider the most profitable capture first (MVV/LVA sorting)
*) A Bishop pair is worth more than twice as much as a single Bishop (material table)
*) It saves time to remember positions you have already evaluated before in a table, because you might encounter them again later through transposition of moves (hash table).
*) If a non-capture refutes one of your moves, there is a good chance it will refute many of your other moves from the same position too (killer heuristic)
*) Attacking squares around the opponent King can be worth a lot, (and thus worth sacrificing material), and attacking with more different pieces is in general more dangerous than attacking more squares with the same piece (king safety)

Turning those simple ideas into actual, bug-free code is >99% of the work.

What you are saying is really equivalent to proposing that since none of the Formula 1 racing teams invented the wheel or the idea you could generate motion from an exploding gas mixture, they should be allowed to steal each other's cars. Most people would recognize that as a completely ridiculous proposition. But to Chess programmers, what you propose / ask is exactly as ridiculous.

[Lusakan]

But guess what, the world of computer chess consists of more than just your small group of programmers; There is a much bigger community of computer chess anthusiasts out there. You have your interests they have theirs.

So start your own organization, and organize your own tournaments, according to your own rules.

But don't tell us, Chess programmers, how we should run our organization. Because we don't care a hoot about you!

How long exactly have you been ICGA member?

What is the name of your great chess engine again? No, never mind my poor memory. What ever it is, it now has a good chance of winning the world computer Chess championship after the recent decisions by your wonderful ICGA. Nice isnt it?

[hgm]

How long exactly have you been ICGA member?

What is the name of your great chess engine again? No, never mind my poor memory. What ever it is, it now has a good chance of winning the world computer Chess championship after the recent decisions by your wonderful ICGA. Nice isnt it?

I guess we should take that to mean you are not a member of the ICGA at all... Just a not-good-for-anything big mouth whose only 'acheivement' is telling others what they can and cannot do.

And that you think that this is excusable because I, being an ICGA member and engine author, former participant of the WCCC, happen to have other priorities than the rather boring FIDE variant of Chess.

Boy, are you pathetic...

(FYI, the name of my engine is Shokidoki. And it won silver in last year's ICGA mini-Shogi tournament.)

[bob]

In the case of Crafty, all that matters is "ME". I do as I want, and I enjoy the competition as a result. My first computer chess tournament was 1976. My first chess tournament (for my chess program) was 1974. Know anybody else that has been doing this for that long? there's a reason. I do what is enjoyable, and so long as it is enjoyable, I will continue to do it. I don't enjoy copying code from others. I do enjoy sharing ideas with others.

For me, progress is not of zero value. But originality/creativity is certainly most important to me. I compete vicariously through my chess program. It is MY program. Everyone can't win. But everyone can play fairly. And the best person wins. Unless the winner is also a cheater. Given the choice of cheating and winning, or playing by the rules and finishing up lower, I'll take the latter every time. Others might have a different ethical standard, of course.

BTW your implication seems to be "if you don't win, it is not fun." That's certainly not the case for me, and for quite a few others as well...

This is clearly said Bob. All that matters is YOU and your fellow programmers. All that matters is the joy YOU derive from programming and competing among yourselves.

But guess what, the world of computer chess consists of more than just your small group of programmers; There is a much bigger community of computer chess anthusiasts out there. You have your interests they have theirs.

Let me put it this way, most of us dont care a hoot about your joys and fun because we dont share in those. We care about the quality of the product that you give us. Let me give an example. I love genuine Sony products; and then there are fake sony products. The fake Sonys are usually made of sub-standard materials and their performance is inferior to the genuine product. In this situation Mr sonys product represents better value for me and I will defend him any day because his interests and mine coincide.

Now what happens if the fake Sonys are made of higher quality materials and their performance is superior to the genuine product? At this point Mr Sony's interests and mine diverge because the fake product now has more genuine value to me than his product. I dont care how much joy and fun Mr Sony had in designing his product. I will look at what represents the most genuine value for ME. He will tell me "Hay dont you care about originality?" and I will tell him "Mr Sony, to ME originality without utility value is meaningless".

Here is an amendment to ICGA rule 2: If a cloner copies your program and produces a clone thats 100 elo stronger than your program it ceases to be clone.

And what prevents that "group of end-users" from doing whatever they want?" They want a WCCCC (World Computer Chess Clone Championship)? I see nothing that prevents that. I won't participate. I suspect there are many that won't participate.

We are talking about what "we the programmers" want. We, the people that FORMED the ICGA. For one specific purpose. Namely to promote computer chess development and competition. For the programmers. Not for the end users...

Here's a better rule: If a cloner copies a program, he can't use it in any event that the programmers organize. Oops. We already have that rule. And we are happy with it.

[bob]

How long exactly have you been ICGA member?

What is the name of your great chess engine again? No, never mind my poor memory. What ever it is, it now has a good chance of winning the world computer Chess championship after the recent decisions by your wonderful ICGA. Nice isnt it?

I guess we should take that to mean you are not a member of the ICGA at all... Just a not-good-for-anything big mouth whose only 'acheivement' is telling others what they can and cannot do.

And that you think that this is excusable because I, being an ICGA member and engine author, former participant of the WCCC, happen to have other priorities than the rather boring FIDE variant of Chess.

Boy, are you pathetic...

(FYI, the name of my engine is Shokidoki. And it won silver in last year's ICGA mini-Shogi tournament.)

He was a member. Whether he still is or not is unknown. And irrelevant. He no longer competes, and no longer speaks as "a computer chess programmer."

[bob]

If the Igca rules were to prevail in everything, scientific research would stop. Everything developed in every area comes from the use of previous materiel... To claim the obligation to reinvent the wheel each time, once and again, is preposterous.
Igca can establish the rules they wish for his competitions, but they have not moral or juridical weight, exception made of extreme cases of sheer copying.
To make of those rules kind of a divine decree is pedantic and sterile.
In fact, it is clear that it has been with all this supposed or real cloning, copying, codes stolen or lent, etc that the field has advanced at great steps these last three years after a lapse of comparative slowness and even stagnation.
Of course we have people that feel they have been hurt in his rights, and some times it has been so, but the progress is there to all to see.
Technological advance never has been a 100% clean affair regards
Fern

Good post old friend. With Dylan, times are changing but not everybody is willing to change. A quote from my Rybka-ICGA report:

The current situation anno 2011 is comparable with the year is 2020. Schoolbooks do not longer exists. Kids do not have to carry a bag full of heavy books to school any longer. The only thing children every morning take to school is their 10 inch tablet which has everything in it. Technology has replaced the old paradigm of schoolbooks. And the old paradigm folks are whining, all our stuff has been plagiarized. Of course in court they are without chance but when the old paradigm folks start to play the game of judge and jury themselves the outcome may differ.

Technology has changed the world ever since it made its entree and computer chess is not excused from that. Internet and its freely downloadable chess sources have changed the CC world once and for all. The old paradigm is gone and it's old rules don't work any longer, the new paradigm needs new rules.

http://www.top-5000.nl/rule2.htm

Is that rambling explanation supposed to have any point? An amazon kindle or Barnes-Noble nook? You DO have to purchase books for them. You just don't have to deal with paper.

What ARE you trying to say? Replacing books with e-readers is not going to change copyright law, nor book sales, except that the delivery process has been changed, and you can carry your books in a more compact fashion. But nothing else has changed at all.

That you fight a lost battle like the music and video industry. You can't beat the clones with old rules not fit to stand the pressure anno 2011. That is better to do something now that you still have influence then to wait the problem to grow above your head and then realize you have lost with no influence at all.

It's a matter of vision. But if you want to live in the pre-internet past go ahead. It's mainly the old 80's and 90's generation that want to put their head in the sand.

I hardly consider "ethical behavior" as "putting their heads in the sand." What a world you must think you live in...

[bob]

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.

Nowhere in the rules for a marathon does it mention the term "limits of the human body." It mentions running 26+ miles in the shortest possible time, and requires the participant to run/walk/crawl/slide every inch of the way under his own power. Seems similar to requiring that a chess competitor must write every line of his own code...