Steve Maughan wrote:If it's so much more difficult to become a GM then why are there are much more GMs in the world than people who have written GM even chess programs?
I realize thee could be lots of reasons. Lets look at a few.
You're overlooking the little fact that there are many more chess players than chess programmers to begin with. The percentage of chess players that are GM is far lower than the percentage of chess programmers that have written a program of GM strength.
It could be that they just love the game. In which case there really isn't a need for the GM title at all.
I don't follow you. That GMs love the game has nothing to do with how hard it is to write a strong chess engine compared to becoming a GM. And GM titles were certainly never intended to stimulate chess players that do not like the game...
Writing a GM level chess engine is relatively easy for the following reasons:
- computers are so fast nowadays that a GM level chess engine can be achieved with a few well-implemented good ideas;
- all those ideas and more can be found on the internet without much trouble;
- mastering and implementing those ideas isn't hard for a somewhat talented programmer. It certainly takes far less time than it takes a chess player to achieve GM level, however talented he or she is.
you assert here open source engines took the fun away from you
Actually no. I entered the scene after fruit was published, even after the whole Rybka discussion. So I just live with them.
What actually bothers me is not someone publishing his code, I'm not even bothered if other authors look at the code and learn how to do things from that for their own engine.
But I think it is awful that the ratings list are infested by the minor modifications of the same engine or that the appstore is full of stockfish clones. And this is made possible be publishing complete source codes of engines.
In order to share an idea it is not necessary to share the source code of an whole engine, it would be enough to share the source code of the idea or publish a paper about it. No problem with that.
Any for myself I don't look much at other engines source code (except CPW when I started) and I had a look at the crafty sources, but not for the code but for the comments which were really helpful to get the idea.
tpetzke wrote:What actually bothers me is not someone publishing his code, I'm not even bothered if other authors look at the code and learn how to do things from that for their own engine.
But I think it is awful that the ratings list are infested by the minor modifications of the same engine or that the appstore is full of stockfish clones. And this is made possible be publishing complete source codes of engines.
Why do you blame the clones problem on those generous programmers who wrote strong original engines and then released their source code? That's like blaming game developers for their games being pirated.
The real engine authors who choose to share their source, are just giving back to their community. Sharing is a human thing and a moral thing to do, and authors who wrote their engine themselves have earned the right to share their code with others if they want to.
It is the cloners who deserve the blame for the glut of almost-identical engines on the rating lists. They selfishly take the hard work of others, make trivial changes to it and slap their own name on it and pretend it was their own work. They and no one else, are responsible for their actions. Nobody forced them to copy 99% of the code of an existing engine, they just did it because they are lazy and selfish and because they could.
Steve Maughan wrote:As I write Maverick it's apparent that to create an engine from scratch which plays at genuine Grandmaster level is not trivial. It's more than just bolting together a set of known heuristics. Which made me think - it would be great if there was a "Computer Chess Grandmaster" tItle. It would give our hobby a target to aim for. Maybe it would also attract new talent.
Here's what I propose. The title would be governed by a body e.g. CCRL. If anyone wants to submit their engine there is a fee of $xxx which goes to the testers. The engine would first need to pass a test to ensure it wasn't a clone. Possibly also submit source code. It would then be tested by someone like CCRL. If it scored >2500 ELO in a x game match againt other engines then the author would be awarded the title of computer chess Grandmaster.
I could see some honorary title awarded up front to those individuals which have written engines which are clearly of GM strength.
What do others think?
Steve
I think that to qualify for computer GM, the program must be rigorously tested to see that it never misses ANY move or planning which any human GM would find (unless the GM is wrong, of course).
Alternatively to this rigorous testing, it would qualify when it reaches 3500 elo in rated matches comp vs comp, (or vs human too).
AND, it makes no difference if it is considered a clone or not, because at the momment, no engine will anyway qualify yet, as far as i know.
they just did it because they are lazy and selfish and because they could.
I just wished we would make it a bit harder for them to do that. I agree that the intentions of the open source programmers are good. Just the course of actions it triggers is less desirable.
In the military history the one that did not lock its closet was also punished because he invited his fellows to steal. The world is just not perfect.
It's interesting to note all positive responses seem to have come from people with engines rated less than 2500 ELO. The opposition seems to come mainly from people with engines above 2500 ELO. Draw your own conclusion.
