World Computer Chess Championship

[Graham Banks]

Perhaps just allow engines that have been developed over a period of at least three years (and are still active) to participate without any restrictions.

This shows a reasonable degree of dedication, and coupled with the expenses involved in participating seems fair.

[jdart]

#1 I assume entry is only open to authors or their chosen representatives.

#2 if full logs with PVs are available then I assume some analysis could be done to detect engine substitution.

#3 In the human world there is certainly precedent for online tournaments with prizes. See for example https://en.chessbase.com/post/fide-worl ... -qualifier

--Jon

[mjlef]

I find it perplexing that people complain of lack of transparency, then you suggest hiding important information from the public. Perhaps you can explain why?

Say an author of a private engine applies to enter. You check the engine, and decide it is not eligible for whatever reason. You communicate your decision to the author and that is it. It is no-one else's business. The public has no right to know and no need to know. It is a huge breach of privacy if you then communicate that to the world at large. And let's be clear, we may not be talking about cloning or privacy, it could be something quite innocent and trivial.

If you were to apply to the bank for a loan, and they reject you, do you think they have the right to let the world know about it ??

We appreciate your input.

Regarding your loan rejection, in the United States, anytime you apply for credit becomes a part of your credit record. This is because people who apply for a lot of credit often are bad credit risks. And since any loans you do take out become part of your credit report, it is not hard for a future lender to see you were rejected (although they would not know why).

There have been very few rejections of engines in ICGA events. Some are simple misunderstanding where someone might enter something like a copy of Crafty with a few mods, not knowing they would have to get the original authors agreement. Things like making a cluster version of another program (I seem to recall someone once using Crafty and making it a cluster program) have been permitted with the original author's agreement.

I think rejecting an engine and not letting others know why is lack of transparency. All of this is up to the ICGA Board, and I imagine they could treat some rejections differently from others. Someone entering a clone claiming originality might be publicly released. Someone not understanding the rules could be handled privately. I do not have the full history of rejections, so I am speculating a bit.

[Modern Times]

Regarding your loan rejection, in the United States, anytime you apply for credit becomes a part of your credit record. This is because people who apply for a lot of credit often are bad credit risks. And since any loans you do take out become part of your credit report, it is not hard for a future lender to see you were rejected (although they would not know why).

A future lender yes, and there are strict controls as to who can access your credit record, and even then only with your permission. Certainly not available to the public at large.

I think rejecting an engine and not letting others know why is lack of transparency. All of this is up to the ICGA Board,

Not a lack of transparency at all, it is a matter of Privacy. Only if you think laws have been broken would you go further, and then you'd pass the information on to the appropriate authorities, not the world at large.

[mjlef]

Regarding your loan rejection, in the United States, anytime you apply for credit becomes a part of your credit record. This is because people who apply for a lot of credit often are bad credit risks. And since any loans you do take out become part of your credit report, it is not hard for a future lender to see you were rejected (although they would not know why).

A future lender yes, and there are strict controls as to who can access your credit record, and even then only with your permission. Certainly not available to the public at large.

I think rejecting an engine and not letting others know why is lack of transparency. All of this is up to the ICGA Board,

Not a lack of transparency at all, it is a matter of Privacy. Only if you think laws have been broken would you go further, and then you'd pass the information on to the appropriate authorities, not the world at large.

You are right that a credit report is not a good analogy. Although it is available to a huge number of people. A better analogy would be a criminal record. In the US, many parts of a criminal record are available to anyone, for example, being convicted of a crime. So lets assume some cloner wants to enter WCCC, and after having a third part examine the code, it is concluded it is a clone. So the entry is denied. Don't you think the public at large should know the information gathered so they can see if it is original or a clone? People holding other tournaments, rating lists, even people that bought the clone would want to know what is found. Why would evidence of wrongdoing be covered up? TO me that would be like trying to cover up a crime.

Again I am speaking for myself. The ICGA Board might do something different, but to me the moral thing is let people know what was found.

[mjlef]

Is it ICGA's position that allegedly Fruit-derivative, Rybka-derivative Fritz would be not be allowed as an entrant, as its author remains "banned for life"?

The question is academic as I reckon there would be no interest in participating on his part or Chessbase's. Nonetheless, a policy statement would be illuminating.

ICGA's management should stop and ponder the cosmic absurdity of prohibiting Fritz from entering its competitions, given that engine's (or rather, that brand-name's) long and venerable history within computer chess.

I have not heard of any change in the ICGA Board decision. Just to let you know the history, the investigation panel produced a report summarizing the evidence and asking panel if they thought that the tournament rules were violated. All who answered that survey agreed the rules were violated.

But the panel said this in the report:

"None of the ICGA Tournament entry forms submitted by Vasik Rajlich indicated that
much of Rybka’s code was based on Fruit 2.1 (and earlier versions on Crafty). This is
in violation of the ICGA Tournament Rules. Suitable punishment is:
● to strip Rajlich of all ICGA Tournament Titles and,
● force the return of trophies and prize funds to the ICGA and,
● ban his programs from future competitions until he can satisfy the ICGA that they
are no longer derivatives and that he has satisfied the conditions of any other
penalties the ICGA imposes"

As you can see there is no lifetime ban in there. Just a ban from competing until he could satisfy ICGA that his programs are no longer derivatives. I think most of the panel members were surprised by the ICGA Board's lifetime ban decision. I was not in favor of it. Vasik did not seem to even want to try to defend himself. He was invited to become part of the panel multiple times, but refused to join. We sent him summaries which he never addressed.

Anyway, that is just history. I do not know how the ICGA Board would respond if the Rybka derived Fritz entered. You could ask David right here and see. But note ICGA Board members change over time and their opinions could change too.

[Modern Times]

So lets assume some cloner wants to enter WCCC, and after having a third part examine the code, it is concluded it is a clone. So the entry is denied. Don't you think the public at large should know the information gathered so they can see if it is original or a clone? People holding other tournaments, rating lists, even people that bought the clone would want to know what is found. Why would evidence of wrongdoing be covered up? TO me that would be like trying to cover up a crime.

It is not up to you to decide if a crime has been committed. You pass your findings on to the Police, and they will decide if they think a crime has been committed, not you, they will have their own experts examine the evidence you present, and they will decide if the evidence is sufficient to prosecute. And even then, the verdict may not be "guilty". The ICGA are not judge, jury and executioners in these matters. If you want to exclude an engine that is entirely up to you, but the reasons are a private matter between you and the author unless you consider there is evidence of a crime. In which case you pass the information on to the relevant authorities. If you think and engine breaches your rules then that is your right, but that is were things end unless there is no suspicion of a crime, in which case you involve the relevant authorities.

[Modern Times]

Why would evidence of wrongdoing be covered up? TO me that would be like trying to cover up a crime.

Allegations of wrongoing, in your opinion, not proven by the relevant authorities. You are entitled to enforce your own rules in whatever way you like and to whatever evidential standards you see fit, in private but you are not a public protector. Everyone has basic human rights, and it seems that the ICGA have no understanding of that whatsoever.

[Adam Hair]

So lets assume some cloner wants to enter WCCC, and after having a third part examine the code, it is concluded it is a clone. So the entry is denied. Don't you think the public at large should know the information gathered so they can see if it is original or a clone? People holding other tournaments, rating lists, even people that bought the clone would want to know what is found. Why would evidence of wrongdoing be covered up? TO me that would be like trying to cover up a crime.

It is not up to you to decide if a crime has been committed. You pass your findings on to the Police, and they will decide if they think a crime has been committed, not you, they will have their own experts examine the evidence you present, and they will decide if the evidence is sufficient to prosecute. And even then, the verdict may not be "guilty". The ICGA are not judge, jury and executioners in these matters. If you want to exclude an engine that is entirely up to you, but the reasons are a private matter between you and the author unless you consider there is evidence of a crime. In which case you pass the information on to the relevant authorities. If you think and engine breaches your rules then that is your right, but that is were things end unless there is no suspicion of a crime, in which case you involve the relevant authorities.

Is it your opinion that a suspension due to suspected doping is a private matter between an athlete and a sports organization and should not be made publicly known?

[leavenfish]

Mark....not sure why you are letting yourself get drawn into this tired old debate. But to each his own.

Meanwhile, there has not been a Komodo update made available to subscribers in 7 MONTHS...and my subscriptions expires in 8 days.

Will you be providing an update (any update) in the next week?