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.
Uri Blass
Posts: 8557
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Uri Blass » Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:49 pm

I do not remember a direct claim of Robert Houdart that houdini did not start from Ippolit.

I only remember a claim of him that houdini is original in the source code level.
I am not sure if he lied and there may be a misunderstanding of what he meant.

User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Don » Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:17 pm

Uri Blass wrote:I do not remember a direct claim of Robert Houdart that houdini did not start from Ippolit.
Wow, you sound just like Robert here. Is it that important for you to figure out some way that Robert may not have told a lie in some technical sense?

Didn't Clinton try something like that?

I only remember a claim of him that houdini is original in the source code level.
I am not sure if he lied and there may be a misunderstanding of what he meant.
It doesn't matter what he meant technically. What matters is that his statement was a way to mislead you into thinking that the program was original when it wasn't. It's almost ironic that his program is named after a magician - a magician is skilled in the art of deception and misdirection.

You said it yourself, he statement was so carefully crafted that you say, "There may be a misunderstanding of what he meant." And you "are not sure if he lied." Well if you listen to any politician you will feel that same confusion.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.

Uri Blass
Posts: 8557
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Uri Blass » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:29 pm

Don wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:I do not remember a direct claim of Robert Houdart that houdini did not start from Ippolit.
Wow, you sound just like Robert here. Is it that important for you to figure out some way that Robert may not have told a lie in some technical sense?

Didn't Clinton try something like that?

I only remember a claim of him that houdini is original in the source code level.
I am not sure if he lied and there may be a misunderstanding of what he meant.
It doesn't matter what he meant technically. What matters is that his statement was a way to mislead you into thinking that the program was original when it wasn't. It's almost ironic that his program is named after a magician - a magician is skilled in the art of deception and misdirection.

You said it yourself, he statement was so carefully crafted that you say, "There may be a misunderstanding of what he meant." And you "are not sure if he lied." Well if you listen to any politician you will feel that same confusion.
I prefer not to assume that somebody is lying if there is a doubt about it
and there is a difference between making a wrong statement and lying(lying is making a wrong statement when you know that it is wrong).

There are people that their first language is not english(I am one of them
and I believe the same is for Robert Houdart) and a misunderstanding is clearly possible.

I am not sure if Robert Houdart meant to give a wrong or misleading statement and I dislike to see people being attacked if there is a doubt
if they are quilty.

User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Don » Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:15 am

Uri Blass wrote:
Don wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:I do not remember a direct claim of Robert Houdart that houdini did not start from Ippolit.
Wow, you sound just like Robert here. Is it that important for you to figure out some way that Robert may not have told a lie in some technical sense?

Didn't Clinton try something like that?

I only remember a claim of him that houdini is original in the source code level.
I am not sure if he lied and there may be a misunderstanding of what he meant.
It doesn't matter what he meant technically. What matters is that his statement was a way to mislead you into thinking that the program was original when it wasn't. It's almost ironic that his program is named after a magician - a magician is skilled in the art of deception and misdirection.

You said it yourself, he statement was so carefully crafted that you say, "There may be a misunderstanding of what he meant." And you "are not sure if he lied." Well if you listen to any politician you will feel that same confusion.
I prefer not to assume that somebody is lying if there is a doubt about it
and there is a difference between making a wrong statement and lying(lying is making a wrong statement when you know that it is wrong).
This is the crux of the matter - any hustler, con artist or politician depends on the fact that people would prefer to believe they are not lying. This is why advertising works so well, even though 95% of all advertising is nonsense.

In the background as I write this the TV is running with an infomercial on some sort of pillow they want you to buy - a pillow that will cure snoring, make you sleep better and change your life. Do you give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that too? A lot of people do! Wait - I just heard someone say that they give it their personal guarantee! I have to go order my pillow right now.

Seriously, I'm not advocating that we all become cynics about everything anyone says, but just a little common sense should go a long way.

There are people that their first language is not english(I am one of them
and I believe the same is for Robert Houdart) and a misunderstanding is clearly possible.

I am not sure if Robert Houdart meant to give a wrong or misleading statement and I dislike to see people being attacked if there is a doubt
if they are quilty.
Houdart is extremely articulate. If anything he has better mastery of English than I do.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.

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 » Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:58 am

Houdini wrote:
marcelk wrote:A lot of development is done my many teams in book learning algorithms and book preparation. IMO booking is an essential part of a WCCC.
I perceive a lot of dogmatic thinking in the replies to my simple description of how the TCEC tournament became the most successful tournament of the past 2 years.

Of course a lot of work is done by many teams on "book preparation", but is it relevant to decide which engine is best?

As a chess fan I prefer to see some interesting games starting from move 8 or move 10, rather than a book preparation of 25 or 30 moves.
It's funny how HGM used the expression "test for middle-game engines", when in fact this proposal would have engines play the opening instead of relying on 25 moves of theory.

Robert
Who does the preparation? Of course the engine has an important role in that for the better books. Why follow 25 lines of theory if you haven't studied those moves upfront? That is suicide.

Like it or not, it is the nature of the game of chess that the first moves better be prepared before the clock starts running. Preparing for your opponent, trying to set them up, fixing your own holes before they can be exploited, it is part of the game.

There are other games to play if you don't like that, such as Fischer random. Those tournaments are not yet very popular. A computer chess tournament is as much about engines as Formula 1 is.

As far as analogies go, also the start of Formula 1 is an important factor there. If they didn't want that, they would let every car race on an empty track and measure the round times, or start the cars X seconds from each other. But they don't. And consequently, engineers and drivers prepare the start as serious as the round times.

chrisw
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by chrisw » Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:21 am

Don wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:I do not remember a direct claim of Robert Houdart that houdini did not start from Ippolit.
Wow, you sound just like Robert here. Is it that important for you to figure out some way that Robert may not have told a lie in some technical sense?

Didn't Clinton try something like that?

I only remember a claim of him that houdini is original in the source code level.
I am not sure if he lied and there may be a misunderstanding of what he meant.
It doesn't matter what he meant technically. What matters is that his statement was a way to mislead you into thinking that the program was original when it wasn't. It's almost ironic that his program is named after a magician - a magician is skilled in the art of deception and misdirection.

You said it yourself, he statement was so carefully crafted that you say, "There may be a misunderstanding of what he meant." And you "are not sure if he lied." Well if you listen to any politician you will feel that same confusion.
In my humble opinion you are completely out of order. You are a moderator here and it behoves you to keep your balance, not least because you are also a commercial competitor to Houdart but also because it is by no means proven that he has done anything wrong. It is also by no means proven that your own program is clean, is it?

Loose, biased accusations of Clintonesque lying, skill in the art of deception, lying like a politician and similar bla bla from your mod role, disqualifies you from your mod role, again in my humble opinion. Please don't stand again.

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

Best Post

Post by kgburcham » Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:08 pm

In my humble opinion you are completely out of order. You are a moderator here and it behoves you to keep your balance, not least because you are also a commercial competitor to Houdart but also because it is by no means proven that he has done anything wrong. It is also by no means proven that your own program is clean, is it?
Loose, biased accusations of Clintonesque lying, skill in the art of deception, lying like a politician and similar bla bla from your mod role, disqualifies you from your mod role, again in my humble opinion. Please don't stand again.
This is the all time best post I have ever read from Chris Whittington.
To really appreciate this post, you must read it more than once.
Amazing piece of artwork.
Sorry to those that I made mad with these compliments about Chris.
kgburcham

Get up Prince of Troy, I wont let a stone take my glory.

bob
Posts: 20478
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by bob » Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:47 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
You either let derivatives in, or you keep them out. The ICGA rules (rule 2, specifically) "keeps them out." There is no "middle-ground". That leads to a perpetual argument about "which is the correct derivative from this 'family' that should be allowed to enter.

I have repeatedly said, anyone can host any sort of event they want. If the rules are popular, the event will be attended. If not... If a group wants the ICGA to change, they can join and then participate in the rules discussions. Majority has ALWAYS ruled in rules decisions...

bob
Posts: 20478
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by bob » Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:49 pm

Houdini wrote:
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
Nobody cares about "uniform platform". Such events have existed in the past, and died due to complete lack of interest. What is the point of recycling an old (and failed) idea? Which platform? Single core? Multiple core? NUMA? GPUs? No custom hardware? Sounds like "fun"...

bob
Posts: 20478
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by bob » Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:53 pm

Rebel wrote:
hgm wrote:
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!
:lol:

One thing the ICGA was always right is to have 2 titles, one for equal hardware, one for unlimited. Else many programmers won't show up.
ICGA didn't have "two titles" for a long time. It was purely for the commercial programs that this category (WMCCC) was added.

Post Reply