World Computer Chess Championship

[mjlef]

Regarding your loan rejection, in the United States, anytime you apply for credit becomes a part of your credit record. This is because people who apply for a lot of credit often are bad credit risks. And since any loans you do take out become part of your credit report, it is not hard for a future lender to see you were rejected (although they would not know why).

A future lender yes, and there are strict controls as to who can access your credit record, and even then only with your permission. Certainly not available to the public at large.

I think rejecting an engine and not letting others know why is lack of transparency. All of this is up to the ICGA Board,

Not a lack of transparency at all, it is a matter of Privacy. Only if you think laws have been broken would you go further, and then you'd pass the information on to the appropriate authorities, not the world at large.

Give it up, it's still the same "name and shame them on the internet" mentality what's driving them.

While in the meantime Komodo (and many others) has taken more stuff from other sources than Vas ever did from Fruit.

Ah, I see you are trying the Tu Quoque Fallacy now.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque The thing is, saying someone else breaks a rule in no way lessens the fact that the original person broke that rule.

You also present no evidence at all that "Komodo (and many others) has taken more stuff from other sources than Vas ever did from Fruit." It is not true for Komodo.

When I talk about Komodo it's not automatically about you. Don has been quite openly about his work, from the README of his first release -

Also, much credit goes to the authors of open source chess programs. Many of the ideas and techniques for doch have been borrowed from these wonderful works of art.

Secondly there are many postings (here in the archives and perhaps in Rybka forum as well) of Don (and Larry) that openly admit how they plundered the source code of Ippolit and friends, that Richard Vida sent Don the source of Critter in order (using his words) to shake the tree at the top.

So yes, adding things up, I stick to my former statement. You might have missed all those discussions but I really don't see the difference. Vas took a lot of ideas from an open source but so did Don.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against programmers taken ideas from open sources, as after all that's probably the idea of the programmer that put it online in order that others can profit.

And last but not least quoting Don again - Many of the ideas and techniques for doch have been borrowed from these wonderful works of art. Without them (the open sources) computer chess wouldn't be on its current level.

So maybe it's time for you as ICGA that you rethink your position about open sources and its usuage.

As fields advance, the state of the art becomes well know and used. I certainly have read a lot of books om computer chess. I studied the ideas in Chess 4.6, Crafty, Fruit, Ippolit, etc. Combining ideas and adding to them, improving them is all part of programming. When the panel investigates Rybka, they certainly had this in mind and discussed it. In writing, people use similar phrases derived from past authors, but they add new things and reuse them in different ways. So the panel decided some metric was needed to see how much of one program had been taken from another. This is all documented in the reports we released.

Say you hear about nullmove. The idea being to let your opponent move twice in a row with a reduced depth. If the evaluation is still great for you, then you prune that from the tree. That is the basic idea, but there are many ways to implement it. How much to reduce? Should the evaluation be used to increase or decrease the reduction? What about depth? Programs handle these in different ways. When I started working on Komodo it had a very unique way of handling a score component, which I have not seen in any other program. Anyway, there is a lot of room for creativity and differences, with some likelihood that different programs might converge to a moe similar implementation with time, that is assuming there is one "best" method.

So the panel examined program similarities, and they found a lot of differences, but the evaluation of Fruit 2.1 and the early Rybkas was too similar. There was too much of an overlap of the terms. They were freakishly similar. And they concluded it was too much. It was pretty much the whole evaluation. I have never done that and that is not what is in Komodo. Your claim that Komodo took more from other programs than the early Rybkas is just false. Even in general areas like null move, move count pruning, futility pruning... Komodo is very different. The move generator is different, the evaluation different, material eval is different, even how it does Multi-PV is different.

[mjlef]

I don't really know how +200 elo engine can be a "derivative".
It's like... All engines are derivatives of Crafty, Fruit, Stockfish in some ways. If someone takes stockfish code and improves it by 200 elo, well, it's not stockfish anymore either way.

As you can read in the snippet of my previous post one reason the ICGA insists participants to have written their code from scratch is that programmers have complained Rybka had an unfair advantage by starting from Fruit, which BTW did not even happen. So no derivatives allowed, unfair competition.

It's crazy to see an organization to promote computer chess has become an obstacle to progress. The world has changed, everyone has moved on except for the ICGA that still wants to live in the previous century with outdated rules.

I see Ed has reformatted the same misleading information. I recommend anyone interested in seeing the data compiled by the investigation panel review it themselves her: http://icga.wikispaces.com/Rybka-Fruit%20Controversy. You will find links and summaries of the information all there.

You entirely missing the point I was making and in your reply only concentrate on the "which BTW" part which was added to avoid that folks get the impression I have changed my mind.

Therefore allow me to say it more blunt - by banning Rybka --- since the ICGA called it a derivative --- you have set a precedent that will hunt you until you come to your senses. Basically your organization insist that every participant is obliged to have his engine written from scratch.

In the meantime (and 7 years after) I expected something better but it is still the same old angry men gang that insists talented programmers to go through the same old shit (from scratch) because they had to.

You are a laugh to computer chess.

"come to my senses"? What is that supposed to mean? Your words sound full of anger, not mine. Anyway, I in no way feel "hunted". You are the only one seeming to hunt me, if by hunting presenting the same flawed arguments. The decision was made by other people, not me. Remember this was an investigation by a group of programmers and was simply fact finding. I feel your arguments are flawed and invite anyone interested to read the evidence directly.

You are entirely missing the point, see the red above. And secondly I address you in your role as ICGA representative and as I said to Jose there is nothing personal.

So please as an ICGA representative, do you or do not accept engines that started from an open source and added considerable ELO (say +150) to it and due the changes created an engine with its own positional characteristics and easily would pass the similarity test.

To make it more specific, the obvious example is Houdini, started from an open source, added significant ELO, has (IMO) one of the most attractive playing styles, would you (as ICGA) accept this engine in your tournament?

And I am saying -- if you want to be consistent and ethical -- that you (as ICGA) are obliged to say NO.

There is an ICGA rule requiring a programmer to divulge if his/her entry is derived from another program(s). There is no rule that I know of that says it cannot be derived from another program. As I recall, a cluster version of crafty entered once. Robert Hyatt approved the use of his code and everything was fine. It is up to the TD and ICGA Board to determine if a derivative is a problem. If two or more very similar programs enter, there is a bigger chance one of them could win, which is unfair to the other entries. Certainly taking a lot from other programs without permission and without revealing it is plagiarism. I think these are the main reasons the question is asked.

As for whether any specific program will be allowed in the tournament, you would have to ask David Levy. We do not have time to investigate every program and depend on the community to alert us if there are suspicions about a specific entry. It is then up to the TD and David Levy to decide if they need to have someone investigate.

[mjlef]

I don't really know how +200 elo engine can be a "derivative".
It's like... All engines are derivatives of Crafty, Fruit, Stockfish in some ways. If someone takes stockfish code and improves it by 200 elo, well, it's not stockfish anymore either way.

As you can read in the snippet of my previous post one reason the ICGA insists participants to have written their code from scratch is that programmers have complained Rybka had an unfair advantage by starting from Fruit, which BTW did not even happen. So no derivatives allowed, unfair competition.

It's crazy to see an organization to promote computer chess has become an obstacle to progress. The world has changed, everyone has moved on except for the ICGA that still wants to live in the previous century with outdated rules.

I see Ed has reformatted the same misleading information. I recommend anyone interested in seeing the data compiled by the investigation panel review it themselves her: http://icga.wikispaces.com/Rybka-Fruit%20Controversy. You will find links and summaries of the information all there.

You entirely missing the point I was making and in your reply only concentrate on the "which BTW" part which was added to avoid that folks get the impression I have changed my mind.

Therefore allow me to say it more blunt - by banning Rybka --- since the ICGA called it a derivative --- you have set a precedent that will hunt you until you come to your senses. Basically your organization insist that every participant is obliged to have his engine written from scratch.

In the meantime (and 7 years after) I expected something better but it is still the same old angry men gang that insists talented programmers to go through the same old shit (from scratch) because they had to.

You are a laugh to computer chess.

"come to my senses"? What is that supposed to mean? Your words sound full of anger, not mine. Anyway, I in no way feel "hunted". You are the only one seeming to hunt me, if by hunting presenting the same flawed arguments. The decision was made by other people, not me. Remember this was an investigation by a group of programmers and was simply fact finding. I feel your arguments are flawed and invite anyone interested to read the evidence directly.

You are entirely missing the point, see the red above. And secondly I address you in your role as ICGA representative and as I said to Jose there is nothing personal.

So please as an ICGA representative, do you or do not accept engines that started from an open source and added considerable ELO (say +150) to it and due the changes created an engine with its own positional characteristics and easily would pass the similarity test.

To make it more specific, the obvious example is Houdini, started from an open source, added significant ELO, has (IMO) one of the most attractive playing styles, would you (as ICGA) accept this engine in your tournament?

And I am saying -- if you want to be consistent and ethical -- that you (as ICGA) are obliged to say NO.

There is an ICGA rule requiring a programmer to divulge if his/her entry is derived from another program(s). There is no rule that I know of that says it cannot be derived from another program. As I recall, a cluster version of crafty entered once. Robert Hyatt approved the use of his code and everything was fine. It is up to the TD and ICGA Board to determine if a derivative is a problem. If two or more very similar programs enter, there is a bigger chance one of them could win, which is unfair to the other entries. Certainly taking a lot from other programs without permission and without revealing it is plagiarism. I think these are the main reasons the question is asked.

As for whether any specific program will be allowed in the tournament, you would have to ask David Levy or the TD. We do not have time to investigate every program and depend on the community to alert us if there are suspicions about a specific entry. It is then up to the TD and David Levy to decide if they need to have someone investigate.

One final comment: the Rybka case was unique. Disallowing any program is very rare. I would not expect that to change in the future. The WCCC is about exchanging ideas, playing some games and having some fun.

[mjlef]

As a first step towards recognizing the achievements of the top programs in TCEC and possibly other online tournamnets, the ICGA will this year give an automatic place to the TCEC winner,

Does this mean a change in ICGA policy?

The current TCEC winner is Houdini, a proven derivative.

I assume David is referring to the TCEC that is running right now, not the last season winner. But he can answer that directly.

I do not know of any rules banning derivatives. As I have explained before, derivatives have been allowed in WCCC events before such as GridChess at WCCC 2007: https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/WCCC%202007 and https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/GridChess, GridChess was Toga, used with permission,combined with other software to run on a cluster.

Perhaps there is some confusion. The Rybka case was about not divulging the derivative nature of early Rybka on the entry form. If any program does enter, and someone presents convincing evidence it violates an ICGA Tournament Rule, then it is up to the ICGA Board and TD to judge if an investigation is warranted. If a program is found to be plagiarized without permission, then I assume they will disallow the entry, but that is a decision of the board and TD.

[Tord]

First: Tord did participate in person in at least two tournaments. Once in Mainz (where I met him and found him a very enjoyable person to talk to), and once in Poland (where I did not participate).

Four tournaments, actually: Twice in Mainz, and twice in Łódź. I had great fun on all four occasions. I remember you well and found you a very enjoyable person to talk to, too.

Second: There are reasons not to join as well that may be more important. Both tournaments where Tord joined had favourable conditions for participants (i.e. expenses paid) and did not take more than a few days. Cost and time may be a big reason not to join in a tournament.

Speaking only for myself: Cost is not a big issue. Time is somewhat an issue, but the most important factor to me is that the dark sides of the competitive side of computer chess have become increasingly visible to me in the years since I played those OTB tournaments. I believe competition in computer chess does far more harm than good, and I no longer want to be part of it. There is a slight chance that I'll come to some WCCC or similar event in the future, but if I do, I'll intentionally use some simple toy program that has no chance of finishing near the top. I'll be there to interact with the other programmers, not to try to win.

Regarding Stockfish in particular, by the very nature of the project, it's a non-competitive program. It's designed to show that cooperation and sharing are at least as effective as competition and secrecy for driving progress in computer chess. Having it compete in a WCCC seems totally wrong to me.

This being said, I miss hanging out with chess programmers. If something like an informal rapid or blitz tournament for chess programmers (not their programs) is arranged some time, I would love to participate. Some kind of meetup or conference with no actual tournament would be fun, too.

[davidlevylondon]

I mean the current (2018) TCEC tournament.

[Kotlov]

Regarding Stockfish in particular, by the very nature of the project, it's a non-competitive program. It's designed to show that cooperation and sharing are at least as effective* as competition and secrecy for driving progress in computer chess. Having it compete in a WCCC seems totally wrong to me.

Golden words.

______
*more effective

[Rebel]

I mean the current (2018) TCEC tournament.

The question remains the same and unanswered.

[Henk]

The journalist is Leontxo Garcia, he is considered the best chess journalist in Spanish. Leontxo has the sufficient level to comment technically the games, but in addition his retransmissions are amusing because he counts numerous interesting anecdotes related to chess.

Yes, that's the one. Thx Pedro.

I posted the schedule for WCCC events on icga.org

Not it mentions "There will be an International Grandmaster present in Stockholm to comment on the games for spectators in the tournament hall and online." So it looks like WCCC will have some live commentary this year. If I find out who it will be I will post that also.

Does that mean that there will also be a livestream?

[mjlef]

I mean the current (2018) TCEC tournament.

The question remains the same and unanswered.

I did answer it as best as I know. If any program enters and evidence is presented that it violates ICGA tournament rules, it will be investigated and a decision made if it violates those rules. We do not have resources to investigate programs that might not even enter. It is a time consuming process, and it would not be appropriate to ban a program just on someones claims about it.