How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Houdini
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:00 pm
Contact:

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Houdini » Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:14 pm

bob wrote:The only dishonesty shown here is yours. You have not found a single post by me supporting this "anything-goes" event. If people want to participate, they are free to do so. I will not, myself, for rather obvious reasons previously stated...

I think the past tournament rules have worked just fine, myself...
You've developed a bad habit of not reading very well the posts you reply to.
I didn't say that you are *supporting* this tournament.
I said that you (and Don, and Peter, and others) usually pretend that this kind of thing is the *only* alternative to the current ICGA fiasco. That if one abandons the requirement that all entries be 100% original, one would inevitably get the travesty of Peter's "anything-goes" tournament.

Robert

User avatar
marcelk
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by marcelk » Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:50 pm

Peter Skinner wrote:
Houdini wrote:
hgm wrote:I can only answer that for myself, and the answer is: none whatsoever.
Of course, *nobody* wants to see a tournament with 20 Houdini's.
As long as the debate is presented as a choice between two undesirable extremes - the "ICGA" approach and the "Skinner" approach - nothing useful will come out of all this.

It is interesting to note the intellectual dishonesty of the "ICGA clan" (say, Hyatt, Skinner and Dailey) to pretend as if this new proposal is the only possible alternative for the outdated ICGA tournament.
As if no other more intelligent, more interesting and more modern tournament formula is possible or imaginable...

Robert
I am not part of any "clan". Nor do I think this is the only alternative. I just proposed something; if you don't like the format, then suggest some rule changes.

When have I not been open to rule changes? Did I not put it to the participants before CCT 14 to allow Rybka to participate? Of course, and it was rejected by them, not me.

Instead of bitching about the format, suggest things to alter it to _everyone's_ liking. Nothing is ever set in stone...

Peter
I would suggest to use the something akin to the CVSN's similarity test to filter out near identical entrants. Even if it is not perfect (unless for this purpose control over the playing system, hw and sw, is handed over to the TD), the concept itself is a good one. The problem of authentication remains (1. is the test result coming from engine X, and 2. are the game moves coming from engine X as well), but there must be solutions for that, in the extreme case involve a notary.

User avatar
Peter Skinner
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Full name: Peter Skinner
Contact:

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Peter Skinner » Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:26 pm

Houdini wrote:
bob wrote:The only dishonesty shown here is yours. You have not found a single post by me supporting this "anything-goes" event. If people want to participate, they are free to do so. I will not, myself, for rather obvious reasons previously stated...

I think the past tournament rules have worked just fine, myself...
You've developed a bad habit of not reading very well the posts you reply to.
I didn't say that you are *supporting* this tournament.
I said that you (and Don, and Peter, and others) usually pretend that this kind of thing is the *only* alternative to the current ICGA fiasco. That if one abandons the requirement that all entries be 100% original, one would inevitably get the travesty of Peter's "anything-goes" tournament.

Robert
I've invited you to make some suggestions as to rule changes, but I haven't heard a peep.

If it's a travesty, please suggest something more to _everyone's_ liking.
I got kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bible's to the fiction section.

Jimmy Huggins
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:00 am
Location: Kansas USA

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Jimmy Huggins » Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:35 pm

I'm surprise my idea was never even talked about.

Doesn't money talk and bullshit walk?
If you want to give incentive to the the authors to play, instead of saying if they play all others are out. Why don't you give them a small % of the other programs entry fees? I don't know what would be a good number %. But at 100$ you could probably get enough to cover some of the authors.
[/quote]

User avatar
Houdini
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:00 pm
Contact:

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Houdini » Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:38 pm

Peter Skinner wrote:
Houdini wrote:
bob wrote:The only dishonesty shown here is yours. You have not found a single post by me supporting this "anything-goes" event. If people want to participate, they are free to do so. I will not, myself, for rather obvious reasons previously stated...

I think the past tournament rules have worked just fine, myself...
You've developed a bad habit of not reading very well the posts you reply to.
I didn't say that you are *supporting* this tournament.
I said that you (and Don, and Peter, and others) usually pretend that this kind of thing is the *only* alternative to the current ICGA fiasco. That if one abandons the requirement that all entries be 100% original, one would inevitably get the travesty of Peter's "anything-goes" tournament.

Robert
I've invited you to make some suggestions as to rule changes, but I haven't heard a peep.

If it's a travesty, please suggest something more to _everyone's_ liking.
I have suggested twice before on this forum - even in a direct answer to you - the following:

1) An intelligent choice of participants to generate maximum interest for the tournament.
2) Played on powerful, uniform hardware so that the competition is fair to every engine (no doping!) and doesn't degenerate into a "cluster war".
3) With a serious match format. For example first a preliminary double-round RR tournament, followed by a long match (24 to 48 games) between the top 2 participants.
4) Played with a fixed opening book or set of starting positions selected for the tournament, so that the competition doesn't degenerate in an opening book war. For maximum fairness also play every position with reversed colors.
5) Transmitted live online 24/7 with possibility of viewers to chat with the engine authors - like was done at Chessbomb for TCEC.

This is not about some "rule changes" to what you propose, this is a fundamentally different tournament format.

Robert

User avatar
Peter Skinner
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Full name: Peter Skinner
Contact:

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Peter Skinner » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:08 am

Houdini wrote: 1) An intelligent choice of participants to generate maximum interest for the tournament.
Which participants would be the "intelligent" choice for such a tournament? All amateurs? Just commercials? How many enter the event? What is the criteria for them being selected?

Suggest a list.
Houdini wrote:2) Played on powerful, uniform hardware so that the competition is fair to every engine (no doping!) and doesn't degenerate into a "cluster war".
The problem is there are programs out there that perform differently on different hardware. The only real fair way to play would be on a single core system (Not all programs are MP).

Where do you get up to 50 identical machines? Purchase them?
Houdini wrote:3) With a serious match format. For example first a preliminary double-round RR tournament, followed by a long match (24 to 48 games) between the top 2 participants.
I suggested this format in another thread, and was shot down because of the time it would take to finish the event.
Houdini wrote:4) Played with a fixed opening book or set of starting positions selected for the tournament, so that the competition doesn't degenerate in an opening book war. For maximum fairness also play every position with reversed colors.
Again, not all programs play the same openings equally. I've seen some engines play openings really well, and others just horribly. Who selects the book or positions?
Houdini wrote:5) Transmitted live online 24/7 with possibility of viewers to chat with the engine authors - like was done at Chessbomb for TCEC.
All the CCT events are done live over the internet with the ability to talk to the authors. So that wouldn't be anything new.

Peter
I got kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bible's to the fiction section.

User avatar
Houdini
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:00 pm
Contact:

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Houdini » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:37 am

1) For example: Houdini, Komodo, Stockfish, Rybka, Critter, Ivanhoe, Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Hiarcs, Chiron, Naum, Hannibal, Spike, Spark.

2a) A single computer is enough, in which case only a single game is played and broadcast at any time.
2b) Performing "differently on different hardware" is nonsense. The top hardware today is Intel, so you run everything on a good 6-core or 8-core i7.
2c) A program that wants to be "World Champion" and is not MP... joking?

3) Time for a longer match is no problem, as everything is played 24/7 without human intervention. The tournament can take several weeks without any problem, there's no need for the engine authors to be available during the entire tournament. There could be group stages or RR stage, semi-finals and finals.

4) A database of opening positions can be selected by the organizers. For each game there's a random pick, and of course always a second game with reversed colors.

5) The broadcast is 24/7 for several weeks. Engine authors don't need to be available all the time, they can jump in whenever they want.

Robert

kgburcham
Posts: 2016
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by kgburcham » Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:29 am

Houdini wrote:1) For example: Houdini, Komodo, Stockfish, Rybka, Critter, Ivanhoe, Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Hiarcs, Chiron, Naum, Hannibal, Spike, Spark.
2a) A single computer is enough, in which case only a single game is played and broadcast at any time.
2b) Performing "differently on different hardware" is nonsense. The top hardware today is Intel, so you run everything on a good 6-core or 8-core i7.
2c) A program that wants to be "World Champion" and is not MP... joking?
3) Time for a longer match is no problem, as everything is played 24/7 without human intervention. The tournament can take several weeks without any problem, there's no need for the engine authors to be available during the entire tournament. There could be group stages or RR stage, semi-finals and finals.
4) A database of opening positions can be selected by the organizers. For each game there's a random pick, and of course always a second game with reversed colors.
5) The broadcast is 24/7 for several weeks. Engine authors don't need to be available all the time, they can jump in whenever they want.
Robert
So are you saying Robert you want to limit the hardware, or any hardware is ok including a cluster?
are you saying no private books? or is any book ok?
what about multiple entries of the same program?
3 Houdinis, 4 Komodos etc?
what about the old rule authors only?

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 33014
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Graham Banks » Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:01 am

Houdini wrote:1) For example: Houdini, Komodo, Stockfish, Rybka, Critter, Ivanhoe, Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Hiarcs, Chiron, Naum, Hannibal, Spike, Spark.

2a) A single computer is enough, in which case only a single game is played and broadcast at any time.
2b) Performing "differently on different hardware" is nonsense. The top hardware today is Intel, so you run everything on a good 6-core or 8-core i7.
2c) A program that wants to be "World Champion" and is not MP... joking?

3) Time for a longer match is no problem, as everything is played 24/7 without human intervention. The tournament can take several weeks without any problem, there's no need for the engine authors to be available during the entire tournament. There could be group stages or RR stage, semi-finals and finals.

4) A database of opening positions can be selected by the organizers. For each game there's a random pick, and of course always a second game with reversed colors.

5) The broadcast is 24/7 for several weeks. Engine authors don't need to be available all the time, they can jump in whenever they want.

Robert
I've been running 4CPU tournaments with live broadcasts for months now - CCRL 40/40 time control, generic opening books with reversed colours, chat available.

Unless the top few engines are participating, there seems to be very little interest. Just take my current "Flash In The Dark 4CPU" tournament. Usually there's only one other person watching, sometimes two.

Doesn't bother me that much because I'd run them anyway, but it does give you some idea about spectator interest in such events.
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 23616
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by hgm » Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:29 am

Houdini wrote:1) For example: Houdini, Komodo, Stockfish, Rybka, Critter, Ivanhoe, Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Hiarcs, Chiron, Naum, Hannibal, Spike, Spark.

2a) A single computer is enough, in which case only a single game is played and broadcast at any time.
2b) Performing "differently on different hardware" is nonsense. The top hardware today is Intel, so you run everything on a good 6-core or 8-core i7.
2c) A program that wants to be "World Champion" and is not MP... joking?

3) Time for a longer match is no problem, as everything is played 24/7 without human intervention. The tournament can take several weeks without any problem, there's no need for the engine authors to be available during the entire tournament. There could be group stages or RR stage, semi-finals and finals.

4) A database of opening positions can be selected by the organizers. For each game there's a random pick, and of course always a second game with reversed colors.

5) The broadcast is 24/7 for several weeks. Engine authors don't need to be available all the time, they can jump in whenever they want.
It sounds like an attempt to maximize the chances of your own engine...

You are weak on books? => Don't allow private books! No cluster version? => Limit the hardware! Only marginally better than the opponents? => Insist on many games!

This seems to have little to do with any World Championship to me. But if you add the tiny rule that we only play Spartan Chess, I promise to enter Fairy-Max. :lol:

Post Reply