TalkChess.com

Kingghidorah wrote:

mcostalba wrote:Ok this arrogant and fossilized organization called ICGA really made me get angry and I looked a bit in their site to know a bit more about them. Apart that it really seems "dead and buried", last interesting content is years ago old, I was really impressed by what they call: "World Computer Chess Championship" , the last edition of this farsa was in 2011 and below the list of participants:

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/t ... php?id=239

Code: Select all

1	Junior	
2	Hiarcs	
2	Shredder	
4	Pandix	
4	Jonny		
6	The Baron	
7	Booot	
8	Rookie3.4	
9	Woodpusher 1997

Now the first question that comes to my mind is to what "world" they refer in the title of the event ? Mars ? Underwater world ? Surely not chess engines landscape in 2011, this is clear even to the dumbest. So how they have the presumption to call this marketing event, for the only benefit of legacy commercial engines, "World Computer Chess Championship" ? Because of historical reasons ? Sorry, this is not enough IMHO.

... I am not talking of the engine authors (which I respect all) but of the organization that shameless call itself "computer chess world" !

Amen to that brother.

bob wrote: For the record, there have been criticisms of EVERY WCCC event. The most common: "everyone uses different hardware..."

mcostalba wrote:

bob wrote: For the record, there have been criticisms of EVERY WCCC event. The most common: "everyone uses different hardware..."

And, for the record, do you have also some comment "on topic" ? I mean specifically addressing what has been written ? (not what you think has been written, sometime in the past the difference has been huge )

Don wrote: You opened this thread with critical post aimed at the ICGA - I don't see how this is not on that topic.

Don wrote:
His post is much more on topic than the one you just made, another critical post that doesn't have anything to do with computer chess at all, just a personal complain against a posting style.

mcostalba wrote:

Don wrote: You opened this thread with critical post aimed at the ICGA - I don't see how this is not on that topic.

It is not on topic becuase does not address the content of what has been written in the previous posts.

BTW also you have never addressed any specific content point in this thread....just a kind reminder

Don wrote:
His post is much more on topic than the one you just made, another critical post that doesn't have anything to do with computer chess at all, just a personal complain against a posting style.

His post was along the lines of "ok, this is like the usual sh*** we have to hear at any WCCCC event"

Don wrote:
Have you been at any of these events? They are very well run and the contestants get a lot of feedback. It's very democratic. I don't care if the guy downloading Ippolito disapproves of Bob Hyatt or the ICGA, to each his own. The ICGA does a fine job and they are very dedicated people, they are not these outsiders who know nothing about computer chess.

Don wrote: Have you been at any of these events? They are very well run and the contestants get a lot of feedback. It's very democratic. I don't care if the guy downloading Ippolito disapproves of Bob Hyatt or the ICGA, to each his own. The ICGA does a fine job and they are very dedicated people, they are not these outsiders who know nothing about computer chess.

mcostalba wrote:

bob wrote: For the record, there have been criticisms of EVERY WCCC event. The most common: "everyone uses different hardware..."

And, for the record, do you have also some comment "on topic" ? I mean specifically addressing what has been written ? (not what you think has been written, sometime in the past the difference has been huge )

bob wrote:

mcostalba wrote:

bob wrote: For the record, there have been criticisms of EVERY WCCC event. The most common: "everyone uses different hardware..."

And, for the record, do you have also some comment "on topic" ? I mean specifically addressing what has been written ? (not what you think has been written, sometime in the past the difference has been huge )

I believe I "did". How can ANY event be called a "world championship" unless EVERY country is represented? How can ANY event be called a "world computer chess championship" when all sorts of hardware disparity are allowed? When commercial authors who do this full-time compete with amateur authors that do it part-time?

I believe my point was clear enough. Did the best player in the world compete in the WCC this year? Didn't see Kasparov playing. Does that mean it is not the WCC any longer? Was Karpov the best player in the world in 1975, without playing Fischer? Did he get the title?

WCC does NOT necessarily mean the best player in the world, never has... never will...

Written by Amir Ban and Shay Bushinsky, Junior has won multiple World Computer Chess Championships, and now, in version 12, its playing strength has been further increased – by around 200 Elo points

Laskos wrote:

bob wrote:
WCC does NOT necessarily mean the best player in the world, never has... never will...

Could they name it differently? Otherwise, what an unaware reader can deduce from this ChessBase ads?

Code: Select all

Written by Amir Ban and Shay Bushinsky, Junior has won multiple World Computer Chess Championships, and now, in version 12, its playing strength has been further increased – by around 200 Elo points

The strength description is associated textually with WCCC (spelled and not abbreviated).

Kai

Deep Junior 13 UCI chess engine

The World Computer Chess Champion chess engine for PC MS Windows
Suitable for all players including the World Chess Champion
Platform: PC MS Windows™ 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista and Windows 7 (all versions including 32&64 bit)
Playing ability: World Chess Championship strength (3200+ Elo)†   
Engine authors: Amir Ban and Shay Bushinsky, Opening book author: GM Alon Greenfeld