Leveling The Playing Feild

[bob]

Someone PM'd me that they could not log on to ICC. Here is the PGN for the game I mentioned from the last ACCA tournament:

[Event "ICC tourney 919 (45 10 u)"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2008.11.09"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "crafty"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ICCResult "Black resigns"]
[WhiteElo "2813"]
[BlackElo "2624"]
[Opening "Ruy Lopez: closed, Chigorin, 12...c5d4"]
[ECO "C99"]
[NIC "RL.24"]
[Time "11:01:15"]
[TimeControl "2700+10"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8.
c3 d6 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Qc7 12. Nbd2 cxd4 13. cxd4 Nc6 14. a3 Bd7
15. d5 Na5 16. Nf1 Nh5 17. Bd3 Nf6 18. b3 Rfc8 19. Rb1 Bd8 20. Ng3 Qa7 21.
Rf1 Rc3 22. b4 Nb7 23. Qd2 Rac8 24. Bb2 R3c7 25. Nxe5 dxe5 26. Bxe5 Ne8 27.
Bxc7 Bxc7 28. Kh1 Bxg3 29. fxg3 Qd4 30. Qf2 Qxf2 31. Rxf2 f6 32. Rc2 Rxc2
33. Bxc2 Nbd6 34. Bd3 Nc4 35. Kg1 Ne5 36. Bc2 Nd6 37. Ra1 Kf7 38. Kf2 Nec4
39. Ke2 Ke7 40. g4 Be8 41. Kd3 Nxe4 42. Re1 Ne5+ 43. Kxe4 Bg6+ 44. Kd4 Bxc2
45. Rc1 Bd3 46. Rc7+ Kf8 47. Kc5 Bf1 48. Kd6 Nd3 49. Rc6 Bxg2 50. Rxa6 Nf4
51. Ra5 Nxd5 52. Rxb5 Nc3 53. Rb8+ Kf7 54. b5 Ne4+ 55. Kd5 Kg6 56. Kd4 f5
57. gxf5+ Kxf5 58. a4 Nd2 59. Kc3 Ne4+ 60. Kb4 Nf6 61. a5 Nd7 62. Re8 Bxh3
63. Re7 Kf6 64. Rxd7 Bxd7 65. a6 Bc8 66. Ka5 Ke5 67. a7 Bb7 68. Kb6
{Black resigns} 1-0


Black's move 30 was Qxf2, white's move 31 was Rxf2...

[AdminX]

I really don't see what the problem is here, This should be so easy to solve. So easy a caveman could do it.



http://www.cavemanscrib.com/

[Nick C]

Someone put in a quick hack to make it kibitz the best PV from each node, which probably revealed more than they thought they were revealing

We lost our initial operator (Mike Donnig) due to his hardware problems on day 1. I believe that he uses ChessPartner to connect to the ICC. I took over operation of Rybka during the Naum game (day 1) and I use winboard + polyglot to connect to ICC. My polyglot.ini file has kibitzPV = true, which caused the output you saw.

because yours-truly just happened to be the one they were playing the first time this change was tested,

To set the record straight (again), that's incorrect. I took over operation just under halfway thru the Naum game on day 1. You were third, after Naum and Thinker, Charles can confirm this.

[bob]

Someone put in a quick hack to make it kibitz the best PV from each node, which probably revealed more than they thought they were revealing

We lost our initial operator (Mike Donnig) due to his hardware problems on day 1. I believe that he uses ChessPartner to connect to the ICC. I took over operation of Rybka during the Naum game (day 1) and I use winboard + polyglot to connect to ICC. My polyglot.ini file has kibitzPV = true, which caused the output you saw.

because yours-truly just happened to be the one they were playing the first time this change was tested,

To set the record straight (again), that's incorrect. I took over operation just under halfway thru the Naum game on day 1. You were third, after Naum and Thinker, Charles can confirm this.

In rounds prior to Crafty that I watched, Rybka was not kibitzing a PV. It claimed it was with a "pv:" type heading, but the move was always just one move, the move actually played. I first noticed this in our game in round 5. Whether or not you were kibitzing multiple PVs in earlier games I can't say for certain since I did not observe them continually. But the ones I did watch had your opponents complaining about the lack of any kind of a PV. What you were kibitzing in my game was even worse, as you were kibitzing multiple PVs and essentially "spamming" the game's observers with tons of output.

as far as "third" I am not sure what you mean... I believe this game was played on Sunday, probably the first game of the day if I recall...

[Nick C]

It claimed it was with a "pv:" type heading, but the move was always just one move

Those were the games that Mike Donnig was operating.

Ok I see, as you didn't see Rybka kibbing it's "voluminous" PV's against Naum and Thinker, you made the assumption that the game against crafty was the first game that Rybka did kib these long PV's. Well, if you had been following along you certainly would have seen it kib "PV's from hell" as someone said, against these two opponents.

as far as "third" I am not sure what you mean...

I mean that you were Rybka's third opponent to receive the long PV's, not first.

as you were kibitzing multiple PVs and essentially "spamming" the game's observers with tons of output.

Well, I wasn't too happy about it but the choice was that or how it was in rounds one and two, I offered to set kibitzPV = false, but folks seemed to prefer the long PV's to the short PV's, and you yourself did not take me up on the offer to kib short PVs, if you recall our Ch 64 discussion on it. l'll check again with Vas to see if anything can be done.

[bob]

It claimed it was with a "pv:" type heading, but the move was always just one move

Those were the games that Mike Donnig was operating.

Ok I see, as you didn't see Rybka kibbing it's "voluminous" PV's against Naum and Thinker, you made the assumption that the game against crafty was the first game that Rybka did kib these long PV's. Well, if you had been following along you certainly would have seen it kib "PV's from hell" as someone said, against these two opponents.

as far as "third" I am not sure what you mean...

I mean that you were Rybka's third opponent to receive the long PV's, not first.

as you were kibitzing multiple PVs and essentially "spamming" the game's observers with tons of output.

Well, I wasn't too happy about it but the choice was that or how it was in rounds one and two, I offered to set kibitzPV = false, but folks seemed to prefer the long PV's to the short PV's, and you yourself did not take me up on the offer to kib short PVs, if you recall our Ch 64 discussion on it. l'll check again with Vas to see if anything can be done.

The simplest solution is to kibitz what you would play, and only that. Crafty doesn't kibitz intermediate iteration PVs unless specifically told to do so, it just kibitzes the _final_ PV and score. That would be preferable and would solve the problem, as then you resolve all the PVs the thing produces, and somehow choose which one represents the move you want to play (how that can be done successfully with each PV having a different depth is beyond me but that is a different discussion) and kibitz that score and PV, leaving all the nonsensical PVs out of the mix completely...

[lexdom]

It doesn't matter, the whole purpose is for them handicap Rybka(or any other program out there that is going beat them silly and make the WCCC completely irrelevant) in any possible way, so when they do win the tourney, they'll have something big and shiny to stick to they're product boxes and websites. Just like the overly lying messege on hiarcs.com website. "HIARCS wins only major tournament of 2008 with ALL top chess software competing.." Yes.. Right!

I looked at the hiarcs site and maybe a compromise can be made. An alternative is a single tournament, with two titles. One for "Open Champion" and the other for "Single-Computer Champion".

http://www.hiarcs.com/

HIARCS wins only major tournament of 2008 with ALL top chess software competing.

Recent Tournaments:
HIARCS top single-computer in 28th Dutch Open Computer Chess Championship, Leiden, The Netherlands, November 2008
HIARCS top single-computer in 16th World Computer Chess Championship, Beijing, China, October 2008
HIARCS wins 17th International Thüringer Computer Chess Championship, Germany, May 2008
HIARCS wins 17th International Paderborn Computer Chess Championship, Paderborn, Germany, December 2007

Would you want to see an auto race where they had the category "3 wheel cars"??? The "world champion" ought to be the best there is, not with restrictions or an asterisk by the name.

What many commercial programmers would like is a specific title they are guaranteed to win. "world champion MP" or "world champion cluster" or "world champion single-cpu" or "world champion X86" or "world champion Apple" or "world champion itanium" etc. Make enough titles so that each commercial program can win one of them, and then put "2009 world champion " on the box and everyone will be happy. And nobody will know which program is best overall.

I admit it sounds ridiculous. I proposed it as a compromise seeing that the "title" of "top single-computer" is already claimed by hiarcs in their site. Since they are the proponents of the idea, maybe this could work for them?

[Albert Silver]

I think it is a terrible idea.

Look, the one thing that isn't lacking is testing with uniform platforms. You have SEVERAL very reliable lists to cross reference to your heart's delight: SSDF, CCRL, CEGT, etc. All very methodical.

The one thing that always singled out the WCCC from most other events was the singular variety of hardware used, with programmers trying their best to make that combination workable. Belle, Cray Blitz, Deep Thought, Hitech, and more recently Hydra. Despite this, it has not always guaranteed victory as a certain Fritz 3 showed, running on a Pentium 90MHz, when it beat Deep Thought for the title.

The way it reads, you'd think all it took to win was to load up Deep Fritz on Blue Gene and presto! you'd have the title. One thing time has shown is that it is never that simple.

Winning the 24h LeMans race is not simply a matter of attaching a Saturn V rocket to a Ford Escort, and nor is having the biggest and baddest computer going to simply secure the WCCC title.

I would truly hate to see the WCCC now restrain the creative genius of both programmers and engineers with such an undesirable imposition.

[Erik Roggenburg]

Just about every single form of racing has some sort of restrictions - NASCAR, Top-fuel dragsters, Indy cars, F1, etc. Why not chess? Is the WCCC supposed to reward the guy with the biggest hardware, or the guy with the best combo of book, engine, and tweaked out hardware?

So what if they limit to 8 cores? It isn't as though everyone will show up with identical hardware. Some will be OC'd out the yin-yang, so I think this will lead to true teams: Programmer, Book Cooker, Hardware Guru, etc.

top fuel dragsters don't have any limitations I know of, and I am at the drag strip at least once per month with my son running his mustang. Nascar has a "sort of restriction" in terms of CID and allowable engine modifications. And they are moving toward a "single chassis" design which may well kill Nascar completely. Most want to go see a manufacturer of their choice win, whether it be a Chevy, a Ford, a Chrysler, or whatever. Removing that removes interest. Just watch.

Do you think you can go to a Nascar race with your 30,000 dollar right-off-the-showroom car and compete? Prepare to spend _millions_ first. So I guess I completely miss your point. The big races are for the big dogs. "if you can't run with the big dogs, stay under the front porch..."

Who said anything about competing in NASCAR with a stock showroom street car??

As far as Top Fuel Dragsters not having any limitations:
The engine must be a V-8 design. Specifically, a 90 degree V-8, with a minimum displacement of 490 ci and a max of 500. There can only be two valves per cylinder. Turbochargers are not allowed. Superchargers are allowed. They are also restricted to a certain fuel mixture.

So, there are limitations and restrictions, but things don't always end in a tie? Why is that? Luck, design - how much can you push the envelope within the box you are given to play in before something blows up? - driver reflexes, etc.

That's kind of how I see the whole hardware thing. Say they limit the hardware to 8 cores and 16 GB of RAM. Well, I know of a lot of OC'ing freaks who, depending on the processor and RAM could push that rig to the limits - 33% OC on air from stock, or whatever. So, not all 8 core boxes are equal - the techie fixer behind the box is very important.

I still maintain that some hardware restrictions would be OK. The tournament would be a true team effort - programmer, book cooker, hardware guru, operator. Just like racing. Driver, mechanics, pit crew, etc. all need to be working together at a high level. A great driver would have a hard time overcoming poor mechanics and a slow pit crew. Rybka would have a harder time winning with a stock 8 core box at 3.0 GHz when a close competitor (i.e. Naum 4) shows up with an 8 core box OC'd to 4.0 GHz.

[bob]

Just about every single form of racing has some sort of restrictions - NASCAR, Top-fuel dragsters, Indy cars, F1, etc. Why not chess? Is the WCCC supposed to reward the guy with the biggest hardware, or the guy with the best combo of book, engine, and tweaked out hardware?

So what if they limit to 8 cores? It isn't as though everyone will show up with identical hardware. Some will be OC'd out the yin-yang, so I think this will lead to true teams: Programmer, Book Cooker, Hardware Guru, etc.

top fuel dragsters don't have any limitations I know of, and I am at the drag strip at least once per month with my son running his mustang. Nascar has a "sort of restriction" in terms of CID and allowable engine modifications. And they are moving toward a "single chassis" design which may well kill Nascar completely. Most want to go see a manufacturer of their choice win, whether it be a Chevy, a Ford, a Chrysler, or whatever. Removing that removes interest. Just watch.

Do you think you can go to a Nascar race with your 30,000 dollar right-off-the-showroom car and compete? Prepare to spend _millions_ first. So I guess I completely miss your point. The big races are for the big dogs. "if you can't run with the big dogs, stay under the front porch..."

Who said anything about competing in NASCAR with a stock showroom street car??

As far as Top Fuel Dragsters not having any limitations:
The engine must be a V-8 design. Specifically, a 90 degree V-8, with a minimum displacement of 490 ci and a max of 500. There can only be two valves per cylinder. Turbochargers are not allowed. Superchargers are allowed. They are also restricted to a certain fuel mixture.

Don't know what drag racing you watch, but the motors are anything +but+ identical. yes, most use the hemi block, and the heads are normal race hemi heads. But porting, polishing, camshaft grind, overlap, compression, timing, etc are all up to the individual teams, as are superchargers, boost levels, etc. Fuel can't exceed 90% nitromethane, and everyone uses 90% nitro with 10% alcy. Then there are transimissions, gear rations, air clutch mechanism, clutch release timing, clutch pressure levels, tires, etc.

It is hardly a "8 core max" condition...

So, there are limitations and restrictions, but things don't always end in a tie? Why is that? Luck, design - how much can you push the envelope within the box you are given to play in before something blows up? - driver reflexes, etc.

It is about $. The more $$ you have to spend, the faster the racer you build will run. Always has been that way. Take your heads to Leo Klarr in Hattiesburg, MS, let him put 'em on his flow bench for a week and tweak the runner shapes, radii, etc, and magic happens. If you don't have that kind of $$, you just order a set of heads and run 'em and get beat...

That's kind of how I see the whole hardware thing. Say they limit the hardware to 8 cores and 16 GB of RAM. Well, I know of a lot of OC'ing freaks who, depending on the processor and RAM could push that rig to the limits - 33% OC on air from stock, or whatever. So, not all 8 core boxes are equal - the techie fixer behind the box is very important.

And the guy that can afford the liquid nitrogen cooler will have an edge, even though he spent $100,000 on the cooling system and $1,000 on the computer. And that is fair?

The WC is a "best of the best event". Always has been. Always should be. There are a ton of "equal platform" lists you can read til your heart is content. But leave the WCCC alone.

I still maintain that some hardware restrictions would be OK. The tournament would be a true team effort - programmer, book cooker, hardware guru, operator. Just like racing. Driver, mechanics, pit crew, etc. all need to be working together at a high level. A great driver would have a hard time overcoming poor mechanics and a slow pit crew. Rybka would have a harder time winning with a stock 8 core box at 3.0 GHz when a close competitor (i.e. Naum 4) shows up with an 8 core box OC'd to 4.0 GHz.

the 8-core number is arbitrary. Why not 32 cores which is still affordable and costs 1/10th the price of the liquid nitrogen cooling system for the extreme overclockers? 8 is just a number someone pulled out of their a$$ with no thought given and no justification whatsoever after 34 years of prior WCCCs have been "let's find out what is the best, period..."