World Computer Chess Championship

[Guenther]

Hi Ulysses,

For any engine that we are not sure about we consult an impartial expert who has the capability to investigate thoroughly and advise us. If we receive an application from Houdini we will carry out such an investigation and publicize the results. Our decision regarding acceptance or otherwise would be based on that investigation.

David

What is the justification for publicising the results ?? If the engine author submits their programme before the tournament, you check it before the tournament starts and decide that it is not eligible, that is a private matter solely between you and the author, and no-one else. You communicate your decision to the author, end of story. You have no business telling the world why you won't permit an engine to participate. Tell the author yes, but no-one else.

This is completely unsane. The intention of your post can only be interpreted as you like to live in the bubble of better not knowing that your beloved testing object is an illegal derivate or contains cloned parts.

[mjlef]

Hi Ulysses,

For any engine that we are not sure about we consult an impartial expert who has the capability to investigate thoroughly and advise us. If we receive an application from Houdini we will carry out such an investigation and publicize the results. Our decision regarding acceptance or otherwise would be based on that investigation.

David

What is the justification for publicising the results ?? If the engine author submits their programme before the tournament, you check it before the tournament starts and decide that it is not eligible, that is a private matter solely between you and the author, and no-one else. You communicate your decision to the author, end of story. You have no business telling the world why you won't permit an engine to participate. Tell the author yes, but no-one else.

I accept though that the situation would be very different if the investigation happens after the tournament and a disqualification is involved. Then there is a public record to be corrected and it needs to be corrected publicly.

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?

[Henk]

...
Computer Chess tournaments will certainly have to die soon for the same reason that Computer Othello died: the AlphaZero clones will all draw against each other.

Rémi

There are a great many different network architectures so no need that deep learning algorithms be the same.

[leavenfish]

You seem to not even understand how tournaments work. You have to enter first.

True, that's how mere 'tournaments work'...but anything that purports to be a "World Championship" is not a...mere tournament, by definition.

Yes, this will get Team Komodo another paper 'title' they can hang on their product...and yet everyone (yes, you too in your heart of hearts) will know while hoisting the trophy that the 'champion' at that time will likely be the second...or perhaps third strongest engine out there.

Now that, I hate to say that as a subscriber....is more likely to be the truth than not.

[Modern Times]

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 ??

[Nelson Hernandez]

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.

[Ovyron]

What are you talking about. If you are accusing me of lying, please provide details.

Not you. But I think David's claim that the current status of the WCCC is because of "cost of attending" is a lie. You could cover all of the participant's costs, if nothing else changed Houdini and Stockfish would still be absent, and participation wouldn't rise.

Make the necessary changes and people will be there despite the costs.

You seem to not even understand how tournaments work. You have to enter first. Anyone can contact ICGA and suggest rules changes. I see you have not proposed a single change.

I don't need to understand tournaments in general, though I was Tournament Director at FICS for years without problems.

What I need to understand is how a tournament worthy of the name "World Computer Chess Championship" works.

Namely TCEC.

Did TCEC announce that it was to organize the championship and then sit and wait until it was contacted by applicants to participate and do a lot of unnecessary mumbo jumbo?

No, they selected carefully the programs that would participate, and made sure they were relevant and the best in the world, and that's why when Thoresen left the meaning of the T changed to mean "Top", rightly so, the "Top" chess entities get to play unlike in the WCCC.

I have proposed changes, but I guess the most important, crucial change that we need is this:

Change the WCCC's goal.

I don't know what's its current goal currently, but it seems they set up a bunch of protocols and rules and after they were followed they led to disaster.

If your current goal does not include having the strongest chess entities appearing, then it makes to sense to hold the name of a World Championship.

If you change your goal to including Houdini and Komodo, you may need to revise your current protocols and rules to allow them in, or create a new WCCC from scratch.

But if in the first place you don't care if the best is in your tournament or not, because you don't care about entities that don't apply to join, this is the very first thing that you must change, lest all people claiming the WCCC is in a hopeless situation is right.

I don't think you have a conflict of interests, and I believe you'd want to see Houdini and Stockfish losing to Komodo in the WCCC, but first you must want them to get in the Championship, and then you must think about the necessary changes that need to be made to do so.

[Ovyron]

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.

Hey Nelson, long time no see!

What do you think about having the WCCC being organized by someone else instead of ICGA? If the new organization didn't have Vas preventively banned for life it would solve the cosmic absurdity. If the new organization arranged something with Chessbase (who sells 2 of the top engines) and with Stockfish programmers we could surely have a much meaningful competition for the WCCC.

I'm still a huge Rybka fan as my avatar shows , and keep longing for what I perceive as the golden days of computer chess. But maybe they can come back if the right people take over.

[Nelson Hernandez]

Ulysses, the fact that David Levy is directly soliciting input from the current generation of programmers and computer chess fans in an effort to revive WCCC is a big change, and no matter how it plays out this dialogue is a good thing.

The only anodyne recommendation I have is that any competition possess integrity and crown an undisputed world champion, otherwise the "WC" designation won't have much traction. How exactly you achieve this in the ICGA context I am not sure given the operational constraints involved. I do think that the organization's long legacy (dating back to the mid-1970s) is an obvious asset, but it is also a liability in the sense that tradition-bound sclerosis has resulted in the debacle of recent years. Let's hope this effort to revitalize the event is successful.

[jdart]

I don't think ICGA is going to change their minds on this.

Unfortunately it also seems that they aren't very open to changing the format or other rules of the competition. It is going to be the same thing and the only change that was mentioned was adding some more subsidies.

I'd actually like to see them succeed in getting a wider participation, I'm just not optimistic that is going to happen. We will see. If the current year's tournament improves then I'm wrong.

--Jon