Komodo and WCCC

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

judging by R games, something I can certainly do, as the games are available, in distinction to the code, I can pretty much safely assume R does introduce quite some knowledge previous engines at the time did not have, so maybe I am more right after all, and real nps numbers are closer to outputted ones.

I do not know why everyone assumes R has more search innovations than chess knowledge ones, where is your proof?

or, most probably, as with you and a range of other members, to turn you the attack favour, you are mixing supposition/personal predilection with proof?

look at R games:

- fianchettoeing its king bishop sometimes, no other engine did that at the time, even not now
- excellent handling of connected passed pawns
- some smattering of imbalances, lacking in other engines
- more reasonable psqt for pawns and pieces alike, etc., etc.

this definitely seems to me like some knowledge base, does not it?

You can't conclude that from looking at games.
A well-tuned evaluation and sufficient depth will give the illusion of knowledge being present that cannot be traced to a single line of code, it becomes emergent.

Simple example: you do not need to teach a computer how to "build a bridge" in KRPKR. It will figure it out.

simple endgame bridges have nothing in common with kingside fianchetto, done on a regular basis.

and a good smattering of imbalances.

you can not prefer N+R vs Q in complex positions, unless you have sufficiently strict knowledge conditions in code. search will never see that.

similarly, there is no way for search to find g3 + Bg2 in a wide range of openings, simply because there is nothing to see by search.

it is clear there was some knowledge base in R that other leading engines at the time did not possess, and also Fruit does not have.

when you look at a big number of engine games, and know the styles of the engines, it is easy to know when a move is based on evaluation, or purely on search.

simple rule: search helps only in tactically relevant positions, where there is a clear-cut advantage; search is able to see good moves there.

search can not help a lot in tactically neutral positions, with no clear edge, because there is nothing for search to see, and you have to rely on eval.

[hgm]

So basically you only know two scientists, one from the 17th century, the other one having visited thousands of scientific conferences, and from that you conclude that visiting scientific conferences makes you unnotable?

I suppose Justin Bieber and his likes are the people that really matter, in your world.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

I think this is a wrong perception. Last year there were many more non-commercial participants. Chiron was there because he was willing to come; if one of those 'stronger free engines' would have been willing to come, I am sure they would have been more than welcome.

I refer to David Levy's open letter about this WCCC would have been a 3 rounds tournament with 4 participants. Komodo, Shredder, the winner of WCSC, and a fourth one. What if Andscasc and Equinox asked to participate? Both of them are stronger than Chiron, according to ranking lists. I wonder what engine should have been admitted as fourth.

And I think you are too hard on the participants: The playoffs were played at progressively faster TC, where operator speed and attention start to play a significant rule. So obviously distractions are unwelcome. Have you ever tried to have a chat with Carlson, while he was playing a game, or with Quintana while he was cycling in the Giro? If not, would you also say that these disrespect their audience?

I don't feel (and I don't like to be) hard. Public handling is part of event management. If something went wrong, maybe many things could be improved for future. Not only about the public, but also all the things you discussed with David Levy few time ago.

Another thing... There's a lot of useless spamming here, totally off topic. I want to remember Mr Tsvetkov sent a death wish to Roberto Possiotto about two weeks ago. He wrote "Che tu possa morire". Translated to English, it means "I wish you to die". He also said it was a joke. I think it's really a bad joke, and it should be censored. It'd be also nice if he avoids to post his "blitz" viewpoints about the whole universe.

Possioto - possa, do not you see the language pun, man?

besides, no one knows Italian here.

gradisca i miei saluti, il tuo giocatore con punti di vista lampo

PS. I will have to search what blitz viewpoints actually means.

I know Italian, Roberto knows Italian, all Italian people know Italian, some non-Italian know it too. Your joking with death has a bad taste.

but the mods don't.

how can you be certain that all Italian people know Italian?

[bob]

Apparently reading comprehension has reached an all-time low. Stockfish CAN participate if the authors want. The only ICGA rule preventing them from participating is that the AUTHORS have to either participate directly, or agree to allow someone else to operate the program. So the only thing preventing Stockfish from competing is the authors. And there is NO rule the ICGA can create that would be able to force them to participate if they don't want to.

Pretty simple, pretty concise. You are barking up the wrong tree...

I'd rather say... lack of knowledge about rules.

It was more important for me to understand people perception of the event. It's clear enough, now, that ICGA has to change several things for WCCC survival. While I consider Komodo deserves the title as the team is not guilty for Stockfish absence, I'm understanding this event is commercial-driven. Out of 4 participants, 3 were commercial. Organizers tried to justify Chiron presence because of its top ranking, but some free engines are stronger than Chiron.

I still have my attention here:

I was there on Friday afternoon last week to see playoffs. Almost no visitors there. But other games had already finished in days before. Operators liked it better that 'stupid visitors' keep quiet. So maybe best to watch games only via internet.

A wrong attitude towards public is a potential nuclear explosion. If some media operator could have such an impression that'd have been the worst advertising for computer chess.

CC fans are already bored of events like WCCC. I guess this one could represent opinion on many:

I am very, very grateful for the work of team Stockfish.

What this people are doing is the greatest gift in the world for all chessplayers.

As an chessenthusisast i don´t need a WCCC.

All i need is a project of chessprogramming like team Stockfish is doing.

Leave me alone with the marketing stuff of all these businesspeople.

Do cooperate projects like team Stockfish is doing and the world is a better place.

Thx for your attention.

The universe of computer chess has forever been altered by the "big bang". Started with Deep Blue / Kasparov, then on to today where a GM really needs a handicap to have a reasonable chance in a game. Hard for anyone to get worked up over a tournament when they have a super-GM on their laptop, pad or even phone.

Interest in tournaments is down, and interest in computer chess will likely continue to wane over time. When a good book reaches the climax, the denouement can't continue forever. Computer chess reached that "climax" when computers clearly passed GM players in terms of playing strength.

Then there's the cheating that has been going on for MANY years. Too many clones/derivatives. Too many interested more in winning and less in the game and fairness.

It's a combination of many factors. I am not even sure there is much gas left in the game of go, after the alpha go match.

[kbhearn]

Few points from my perspective

What makes a world championship a world championship? I'd argue it's that at least some demographic clearly regards it as such. The WCCC appears not to hit this mark at all - it appears only a minority of developers place much value in its result. Academics have moved on to other fields. And users/spectators may not even know it exists much less care about the result.

The in-person platform provides a sizable barrier to caring. The developers and users/potential spectators that have some interest but not enough to pay for a vacation to engage with it may care a bit more if the competition were online. It could still in contrast to something like TCEC be competitors own machines to allow them to leverage any advantage they can get.

Chess as a spectator event has difficulty hitting the mainstream. By and large professional chess has always relied on a few wealthy patrons with no illusions of making any money off an event to carry the cost. Numerous attempts to put chess on tv failed. The internet is the only platform that's really succeeded in servicing the small demographic who want to watch high level chess events. It was able to do this through a combination of being cheap and widely distributed.

If you want your WCCC to be a live event, you need to find an incentive to make winning it prized enough for people to take precious time to travel/attend. A wealthy sponsor with money to burn is the only thing i can think of in this respect - maybe you can come up with a better idea but the 'prestige' of winning the title is just not enough atm obviously.

If you want it to be widely recognised by users/spectators, you need a significant marketing effort to get it on the assorted chess news portals across the internet, to build hype, and to make sure it's broadcast in a professional manner (video with live titled commentators to explain it to the masses as well as a place for chess servers to load pgns for relay)

[hgm]

That pretty much sums it up.

Switching to an on-line format could be an option. Although on-line tournaments haven't been very popular lately either. CCT seems to have been discontinued permanently.

In these days developers seem only interested to gain 2 or 3 Elo in the rating lists, not in winning a title. And as entertainment, Chess sucks. People would be much more interested in seeing battle bots smash each other to pieces.

[Rodolfo Leoni]

I got several arguments worth of note in last few posts. From Bob, the fact computer engines became stronger than top GMs. The fact anybody could get his own World Champion for free causes lack of interest in events. Why should one follow an event? He already has the best players in his PC...

Again from Bob, clones/derivatives.... a parallel with sport could be the doping issue, with a difference: in cycling races (just for example) it's very spectacular to watch someone klimbing a mountain at an impossible speed; in chess this "doping" often leads to flat and boring games. Unfair in both cases.

From Kevin, about online Championship. Technology brings innovation, and maybe the net is the future. One has tu be sure nobody cheats anyway... There's the danger to become more invisible than WCCC is now, anyway.

From HGM, about the race for 2-3 ELOs. It seems we lost the human dimension of computer chess. Years ago, when Richard sent me a new version of The Baron for testing, he wrote: "Have fun!" For me, this has much more sense than few ELO points.

[Evert]

well, it is obvious, since Van Gogh, no more great painters,

Matisse? Picasso?

since Mozart, very few great musicians,

Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Shostakovic, Mahler... you know what, I know more who came after Mozart.

since Newton, very few great mathematicians, etc.

Laplace, Gauss, Euler...

all those people never attended any kind of conference or took artistic advice, but still their names are carved in gold.

You do know the myth of people from "outside" a field revolutionising the field without any formal training is just that, right? A myth, that is.

people who attend scientific conferences mainly remain unnoticed, at least I can not think of a single worthy name.

Well, that says a great deal about you.

There are about five people in that image I have not heard about. All the other ones are notable. Mme Curie doubly so.

and it is only about natural, in order to create, you need tabula rasa, no knowledge whasoever about the past; once you know about the past, all you can do is repeat things already well known.

You are quite wrong (again).
Conversely, those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.[/img]

[whereagles]

A huge number of paradigms were changed from 1905 to 1935. In all fields of science and the arts. This obviously required great minds.

[pijl]

Years ago, when Richard sent me a new version of The Baron for testing, he wrote: "Have fun!" For me, this has much more sense than few ELO points.

It is all that matters