World Computer Chess Championship ?

[bob]

If people are not interested to participate, it is a pity,

If people is not interested to partecipate to what is called "World Championship" is not a pity, it is a failure of tournament organizers !

It means there is a problem, a problem that people organizing the tournament (not the players) should ask themself "Why?" and "What we can do to improve this?". In any sport, if a world championship is organized and none of the strongest partecipates then the event is a failure and there are some consequences. Acting as "nothing as happened" is very arrogant and shortsighted.

You have a completely twisted and incorrect understanding of the WCCC event and its rules. There are not a few people in a dark back room making up the rules and deciding how the event will work. This is decided BY THE ACTUAL PARTICIPANTS, and the rules have evolved over time as new circumstances have arisen. But the KEY point is that the programmers that actually enter these events define the rules... not the spectators or ICGA board or anyone else...

[bob]

If people are not interested to participate, it is a pity,

If people is not interested to partecipate to what is called "World Championship" is not a pity, it is a failure of tournament organizers !

It means there is a problem, a problem that people organizing the tournament (not the players) should ask themself "Why?" and "What we can do to improve this?". In any sport, if a world championship is organized and none of the strongest partecipates then the event is a failure and there are some consequences. Acting as "nothing as happened" is very arrogant and shortsighted.

There are a lot of reasons participation is low and it's not all ICGA, a lot of it is society or people who have changed. At least in the USA there has been a big change, people are much more entertainment driven and much less cerebral. So more people think of chess as something way over their heads and otherwise very boring to them. 40 years ago people read the newspaper, now they don't read anything but a computer screen. I believe, and I don't know this for sure, that people are much less likely to make a trip overseas. So if you have a world championship in the USA, you won't get very many European participants. The USA, and it hurts me to say this, is probably now the worst place to have a world championship because chess is just not popular here. We would rather sit on our couches and watch professionals play sports for us. I don't know what the state of the art is in computer chess, but most of the talent in computer chess is not coming from this country.

A change I never liked was the extended tournament. In 1983 and 1986, the two WCCCs Cray Blitz won, the event was 5 rounds. In every last ACM event through 1994 (the last one held) the events were 4 or (later) 5 rounds max. The commercial guys wanted a longer tournament for the WMCCC, and they got it. When the two were combined in the 90's, most seemed to favor the longer event (more rounds) and the programmers spoke and were heard. Not all of us agreed, but the majority ruled, as it should.

I'm unwilling to take 2 weeks for a chess event. I'd be more than happy to play 15 rounds over 2 weeks from home, via the internet, but not travelling and being away from home for 2+ weeks...

[bob]

I don't think there is anything unclear about the rule 'thou shallt not take'. It is like complaining that you don't want to work for a certain employer because he doesn't want to specify upto the cent how much you can grab when you dip your hands into his cash register...

Newcomers know whether their code contains implementation details that they don't have the slightest idea of what they are for and why they are there, but are only in their code because they happened to be in the code that they ripped...

And when in doubt they can submit their source code, or the parts that they have doubt about, in advance, and ask if it would be OK. Nothing seems simpler than being honest.

Furthermore, you seem to assume that people fail to participate because they think their code would not qualify in the rule #2 sense. This is a totally unproven and highly dubious assumption. For one, the involved authors all deny it. And for Stockfish it would be plain ridiculous, because everone knows how it developed...

Are you just unwilling to acknowledge the aftermath of the Rybka affair has created a problem for newcomers (modern programmers who borrow from open sources and the CPW) with an interest to participate or do we just have some kind of misunderstanding?

It's easy for us old-timers, we are above any suspicion. Newcomers especially when they are good are suspect by definition. When a new program enters you know the first question asked in every forum. The result of living in a post Rybka world.

Please don't pretend it's business as usual, it's not.

Are you simply unwilling to grasp the concept that taking ideas is perfectly acceptable. Does the Wiki give a working chess engine? Or does it explain, conceptually, how each of the ideas actually works?

Copying code is wrong, re-using ideas is, and always has been perfectly acceptable in computer chess events. BTW, you have been out of CC too long. This was NOT a "post-Rybka" problem. In the middle 90's Crafty was very strong compared to everyone else, commercial or not. And there were MANY questions asked of newcomers back then. Le Petite. Voyager. Bionic Impakt. El Chinito. The list is long, and it was pre-Rybka. Rybka didn't start this, Vas just took the same short-cuts that others have taken in the past, where they were caught.

This has little to do with Rybka, it is just another example of bad bahavior, not the start of something new...

There was a time when gnuchess, on good hardware, was beating all the commercial chess programs. And we had dozens of brand new programs running on ICC. Then those "clones" were based on Crafty. And then on something else. And finally, on Robo* and friends. Nothing new at all, just an endless repeat of the past...

[bob]

As you know last year the Dutch became world champion baseball. For Americans that's a joke, and right they are.

But that is an amateur World Championship, right? And everyone knows that. The best Dutch players were also not participating in the Dutch team, because they play as professionals in the U.S. (Btw, the U.S. professional baseball championship is called the 'World Series', which is a real joke, as only North American teams participate...)

Note that in the WCCC there is no such limitation; professionals (commercial engines) and amateurs can both participate. The commercials just pay a somewhat larger entry fee. But that is actually to their advantage, because it means that amateurs with no chance of winning still pay for part of the costs of the event.

A world championship is only a world champion if the best players (teams) participate. Occasionally it may happen some players (teams) are absent but when it becomes chronic the title loses its value. A world champion soccer tournament without Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy and Spain is no world championship.

The ICGA made a fundamental choice, whether you agree with that choice or not the yearly WCCC is now a second division tournament not worthy to be called a world championship. And they knew that when they made that fundamental choice.

The ICGA DID indeed make a fundamental choice, one that earned my respect and many others as a result. Look at what their 2 fundamental choices were:

1. Deny Fabien Letouzey fair recourse out of fear and cowardice of losing their top draw in these events.

2. Maintain high standards of integrity by not showing favoritism even though it may have unpleasant consequences.


Maybe point 2 is "old fashioned" to you, but not to me. I believe in being yielding and making compromises when it doesn't matter and it helps people come together, but I don't believe in making compromises like this which involve trading off integrity out of fear and cowardice. I also believe that in the long run they have not given up anything.

Yes, I know that Vas was a superstar but it's sad that anyone feels that should give him a pass or special treatment and that the needs of Fabien Letouzey should be sacrificed for their personal benefit.

Don, it's not about Vas, nor Fabien. I support all previous ICGA cases of cloning. It's the way the ICGA has interpreted rule #2 and pushed it to its limits to get the desired result 16 programmers demanded and then leaving ALL of us in the dark by not specifying what is allowed and what's not.

I refer to a crucial quote of Mark Lefler: Ed, I think that is the best summary of this whole thing. Vasik took too much in the eyes of the panel.

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

And so open sources are hijacked by the ICGA to serve as a model and be careful you don't take too much. Problem is, there NEVER was (and still is) no definition of "too much".

This is a scaring scenario for newcomers, especially when you are good. I can perfectly imagine why the Vida's and Stockfishes of our time won't show up although they might have other reasons.

You keep saying this is about "taking too many ideas" but it is not. It is about taking too much of Fruit. Ideas and what was discovered in investigating Fruit/Rybka are two different topics. This is not now, and never was about just "taking ideas". It was about taking much more than just ideas.

This is not correct.

Ideas can be translated to code and even without copy and paste if you take all the ideas that are in another program it is going to be translated into an equivalent code that is not allowed.

The exact values that you give to positional factors or to material or the exact definition of positional facrors like mobility and passed pawns are clearly ideas in chess and it is clear that the claim against Vas is that he took too many ideas from fruit(inspite of the fact that Vas did not took all the ideas of fruit or something close to it).

From someone doing programming for 44+ years now, that is simply false. The art of programming is all about taking an idea and expressing it in the programming language of your choice. That is very rarely a 1-to-1 mapping. In the case of a chess program, it clearly is not. I doubt that if you look at a dozen open-source engines that are original works, you will find even null-move or hashing implemented in code that looks identical or nearly-identical. It just doesn't happen.

Exact values are NOT "ideas". An idea might be something like "I am going to evaluate backward pawns. If the pawn is not protected by a pawn, and can't easily be protected by a pawn, I am going to call that backward."

That is a LONG way from code to express that idea, because when you write the code, that simple idea "can't easily be protected" turns into one of MANY different possible expressions depending on how many CPU cycles you are willing to spend vs how much inaccuracy you are willing to tolerate.

[bob]

Don, it's not about Vas, nor Fabien. I support all previous ICGA cases of cloning. It's the way the ICGA has interpreted rule #2 and pushed it to its limits to get the desired result 16 programmers demanded and then leaving ALL of us in the dark by not specifying what is allowed and what's not.

I refer to a crucial quote of Mark Lefler: Ed, I think that is the best summary of this whole thing. Vasik took too much in the eyes of the panel.

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

And so open sources are hijacked by the ICGA to serve as a model and be careful you don't take too much. Problem is, there NEVER was (and still is) no definition of "too much".

This is a scaring scenario for newcomers, especially when you are good. I can perfectly imagine why the Vida's and Stockfishes of our time won't show up although they might have other reasons.

You keep saying this is about "taking too many ideas" but it is not. It is about taking too much of Fruit. Ideas and what was discovered in investigating Fruit/Rybka are two different topics. This is not now, and never was about just "taking ideas". It was about taking much more than just ideas.

Entirely missing the point. I have questions for you, maybe it's more clear then. Please answer them in your role as ICGA official.

1. In the hypothetical case the Stockfish guys enter then what do you do? Its source code is publicly available.

2. In the hypothetical case Critter enters then what do you do?

Keep in mind there are programmers reading your reply with an interest to participate but also knowing what has happened with Rybka. Modern programmers who have borrowed from open sources and the CPW. Programmers like the SF guys and Richard Vida.

And one step further:

Say you allow both to play but during the tournament or afterwards another complaint is filed with the request of an investigation, then what do you do?

1 and 2. No idea. I have not looked at their code and compared it to anything. Some have reported similarities between Stockfish and Fruit. That doesn't concern me one bit at the moment since both are GPL and both are completely legal from a license point of view. But could stockfish enter the WCCC? No idea until it becomes an issue, because it will take time to answer. I know practically nothing about critter other than what I have read. That is to say, I don't know enough to say whether it would be considered original or not until that point in time arrives and we are asked to evaluate the entry.

At the moment, I would assume either would be allowed to enter, but that it is very likely that someone would protest quickly and it would have to be addressed. I don't see any other way of handling this. Certainly, if a complaint is filed, it has to be addressed, so that question I don't understand. We would do the same thing that was done when Berliner filed a protest about Cray Blitz in 1986 (where I obviously was not part of the ICGA investigatory group). That is, examine the program to see if it was what it was claimed to be or not.

So how does that question even merit asking???

[bob]

Ed,

It will never be possible to have a formal definition of "too much" - as comforting as that might be for us. You will find that even with libraries of books on law it still comes down the judgement of a judge. We are not robots. I think that you are asking for some sort of formula where you tally each line of code with some sort of weight based on content (which I'm afraid would also have to be judged) and then come up with a precise answer?

As far as the other stuff is concerned, I don't know what to say. You keep talking about ideas, "number of ideas" and "chess knowledge ideas" as if that is related to the issue of the ICGA decision. I know you want it to be about that, but it's just not.

My concern is the future, there must be guide lines for newcomers hence my programmer_code initiative. The ICGA needs one for themselves. For the sake of the future "too much" needs a definition. Before the Tilburg WCCC I wrote to David:

Code: Select all

I foresee a rapid developing future that on ICGA tournaments the 5-10 best programs in the world can not play. Anno 2011 I wonder if programs like Houdini, Critter, Komodo, Stockfish could pass rule #2 successfully. Without a firm change of rule #2 I foresee a future I wonder if it makes sense for programmers to spend considerable time and money (new hardware, hotel costs, tickets) and travel 4000 miles around the globe to play in a second division tournament.

And in retrospect looking at Tilburg my prediction became reality even sooner than I expected, a second division tournament. And one obstacle is the unclear rule #2. I am pretty sure if I would do a poll if rule #2 can stand the pressure of 2012 the result would be negative. It needs an update.

What 5-10 best programs in the world can not play? Rybka? Derivative of Fruit. All of the robolito family? Derivatives of Rybka apparently. So ther eare not 5-10. There is really two if you count rationally. Rybka and the ip* family which make up the other 9 or so you talk about.

Calling that group 5-10 best in the world is really a stretch of reasoning...

[Rebel]

Don, it's not about Vas, nor Fabien. I support all previous ICGA cases of cloning. It's the way the ICGA has interpreted rule #2 and pushed it to its limits to get the desired result 16 programmers demanded and then leaving ALL of us in the dark by not specifying what is allowed and what's not.

I refer to a crucial quote of Mark Lefler: Ed, I think that is the best summary of this whole thing. Vasik took too much in the eyes of the panel.

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

And so open sources are hijacked by the ICGA to serve as a model and be careful you don't take too much. Problem is, there NEVER was (and still is) no definition of "too much".

This is a scaring scenario for newcomers, especially when you are good. I can perfectly imagine why the Vida's and Stockfishes of our time won't show up although they might have other reasons.

You keep saying this is about "taking too many ideas" but it is not. It is about taking too much of Fruit. Ideas and what was discovered in investigating Fruit/Rybka are two different topics. This is not now, and never was about just "taking ideas". It was about taking much more than just ideas.

Entirely missing the point. I have questions for you, maybe it's more clear then. Please answer them in your role as ICGA official.

1. In the hypothetical case the Stockfish guys enter then what do you do? Its source code is publicly available.

2. In the hypothetical case Critter enters then what do you do?

Keep in mind there are programmers reading your reply with an interest to participate but also knowing what has happened with Rybka. Modern programmers who have borrowed from open sources and the CPW. Programmers like the SF guys and Richard Vida.

And one step further:

Say you allow both to play but during the tournament or afterwards another complaint is filed with the request of an investigation, then what do you do?

1 and 2. No idea.

Don, HGM, do you read?

The ICGA secretariat has no idea.

So how would newcomers know?

Why should they risk the chance of an investigation?

I have not looked at their code and compared it to anything.

You admittedly have experimented with the SF source code.

Some have reported similarities between Stockfish and Fruit. That doesn't concern me one bit at the moment since both are GPL and both are completely legal from a license point of view. But could stockfish enter the WCCC? No idea until it becomes an issue, because it will take time to answer.

Lemme stop here before I start throwing up.

Questioning Stockfish ??????????????????????????????????????

But thank you for showing the ICGA feathers.

I know practically nothing about critter other than what I have read. That is to say, I don't know enough to say whether it would be considered original or not until that point in time arrives and we are asked to evaluate the entry.

At the moment, I would assume either would be allowed to enter, but that it is very likely that someone would protest quickly and it would have to be addressed. I don't see any other way of handling this. Certainly, if a complaint is filed, it has to be addressed, so that question I don't understand. We would do the same thing that was done when Berliner filed a protest about Cray Blitz in 1986 (where I obviously was not part of the ICGA investigatory group). That is, examine the program to see if it was what it was claimed to be or not.

So how does that question even merit asking???

[Adam Hair]

That engine Oscar wilde wrote that,

or yourself, my friend.

You are one more critical,

Tell me that makes a newcomer to this world and wants to make a program.

To ask for permission to all of you?
Does one port one?
Bored, bored you.
And he has arguments.

Only witticisms and criticisms, critiques, and reviews.

My comment was for my friend Roger much more than for you.

However, here is my answer to you. Any newcomer who is honest about how they make their program is welcomed and supported by me, and by most others.

[velmarin]

You be the judge of what is honorable and honest.
Since when has that authority.

You have the turkey up,

I am a newcomer, not posting does not mean being just arrived.
You will be more ancient, but I took four days in this forum, not in others.
And yet you would give him no more reason than me.

[Don]

Ed,

It will never be possible to have a formal definition of "too much" - as comforting as that might be for us. You will find that even with libraries of books on law it still comes down the judgement of a judge. We are not robots. I think that you are asking for some sort of formula where you tally each line of code with some sort of weight based on content (which I'm afraid would also have to be judged) and then come up with a precise answer?

As far as the other stuff is concerned, I don't know what to say. You keep talking about ideas, "number of ideas" and "chess knowledge ideas" as if that is related to the issue of the ICGA decision. I know you want it to be about that, but it's just not.

My concern is the future, there must be guide lines for newcomers hence my programmer_code initiative. The ICGA needs one for themselves. For the sake of the future "too much" needs a definition. Before the Tilburg WCCC I wrote to David:

Code: Select all

I foresee a rapid developing future that on ICGA tournaments the 5-10 best programs in the world can not play. Anno 2011 I wonder if programs like Houdini, Critter, Komodo, Stockfish could pass rule #2 successfully. Without a firm change of rule #2 I foresee a future I wonder if it makes sense for programmers to spend considerable time and money (new hardware, hotel costs, tickets) and travel 4000 miles around the globe to play in a second division tournament.

And in retrospect looking at Tilburg my prediction became reality even sooner than I expected, a second division tournament. And one obstacle is the unclear rule #2. I am pretty sure if I would do a poll if rule #2 can stand the pressure of 2012 the result would be negative. It needs an update.

What 5-10 best programs in the world can not play? Rybka? Derivative of Fruit. All of the robolito family? Derivatives of Rybka apparently. So ther eare not 5-10. There is really two if you count rationally. Rybka and the ip* family which make up the other 9 or so you talk about.

Calling that group 5-10 best in the world is really a stretch of reasoning...

The fundamental issue here is something that uneducated people do not understand, so you will have a lot of people (even on this forum which consists of generally pretty smart people) think, "why not?" In other words they will say, "just let all the clones compete and let the results speak for itself. It will prove whether the clones are better or not."

But the issue is how much representation that any given program gets. The ICGA has a rule about any author being represented more than once. Even being represented twice is a huge advantage. Imagine a tournament with 20 Ivahone clones - the same authors (whoever they are) would basically have 20 chances to win. It is almost a sure thing that one of the clones will win the tournament, and it's not likely it would be Houdini even though it might be the strongest program in the tournament.

Do you remember the Hong Kong WCCC? I cannot remember if you were there, but I talked to Murray Campbell and he told me that they estimated their winning chances to be just under 50%. That sounds very pessimistic when you consider that Deep Blue was way out of everyone's league. However if you look at this another way you can see that they had a huge amount of faith in Deep Blue's superiority - anyone audacious enough to give themselves 50/50 odds must think their program is pretty strong. Here is why:

If every program was the same exact strength, you could easily estimate the winning chances to be 1/24 (I think there were 24 entrants) since everyone in this scenario would have the same winning chances. That is only 4.2 percent! If you think you have MORE than a 4.2% chance of winning then you must believe your program is stronger than everyone else's. If you think your chances are close to 50% then you are outright cocky! Of course they had reason to be.

There is a reason why each program should be unique. If you want to have a side tournament of Ivahoe clones, that might be fun for you but it wouldn't be very meaningful.