World Computer Chess Championship ?

[MikeGL]

I think it is absurd to talk of ICGA. It'is simply dead.
This association has done a lot for chess engines... In the '70s and '80s! The trouble is that their leaders have stood firm in those years. They're waving a bogey (called "clone") trying to pretend to be the last barrier against barbarism, but in doing so, they are self-condemned to extinction... Like the dinosaurs. I tell them: "Thanks, you've done so much, you will be forever in our hearts, but now please ... Goodbye and thanks!

The solution is simple, and I turn to the proposal to 'all the authors of goodwill':

It takes a lot to make a new association? I think not. You just get together (virtually. We are no longer in the 80s, now there's internet!), decide the rules (simple and clear) and a few other details then... Simply play! Tournaments, leagues, match ... Everything is possible.
I think it would be important to create certain categories and different types of competition, later you can look a sponsors... I do not think this is very difficult.

What about the PCCA (The Professional Computer Chess Association) ? Sounds familiar ?

Sounds familiar indeed.
Just like what happened in the year 1993 when the
strongest chess player at that time, Kasparov, formed
PCA (Professional Chess Association) and got out of FIDE.

GM Kasparov - GM Short PCA Wch 1993
GM Karpov - GM Timman FIDE Wch 1993

[tomgdrums]

Somehow you don't seem to understand that at the moment I am genuinely not interested in your tournament. Your comparing Houdini to a turd is not very likely to improve this sentiment.

I could I used several sayings to express my point:

No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a pig.
Just because you pick up a dried piece of crap, and it doesn't smell like crap, doesn't mean it still isn't crap.

I wasn't calling Houdini a turd. I was using an expression.

You did however manage to once again skip right over the question of whether Houdini is completely original code written by yourself. Being that you continue avoid answering this question speaks volumes; thus the reason Houdini is classified as a "derivative".

I would be interested in participating in a tournament similar to the excellent TCEC organized by Martin Thoresen, which had a very well-thought format:
- An intelligent choice of participants to generate maximum interest for the tournament.
- Played on powerful, uniform hardware so that the competition is fair to every engine (no doping!) and doesn't degenerate into a "cluster war".
- 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.
- Played with a fixed opening book or set of starting positions selected for the tournament, so that the competition doesn't generate in an opening book war. For maximum fairness also play every position with reversed colors.
- Transmitted live online 24/7 with possibility of viewers to chat with the engine authors - like was done at Chessbomb for TCEC.

Robert

That is one of many great tournaments out there to participate in. Uniform hardware events don't interest me at all, largely due to the fact you are limiting all participants. That is like telling Usain Bolt he can only use the same amount of "power" to run his races even though he is obviously capable of much more. Or he can only wear shoes that are supplied to him by the race organizer, because his own might give him a competitive advantage over someone else.

That is boring. I want participants to bring their absolute best to an event. Best engine, best book, best hardware, best operator, best internet connection.. you get the point. This is why upsets are so special, because the best doesn't always win...

Peter

Your analogy to Usain Bolt is off base. Equal hardware is much more interesting from a competitive standpoint.

[Peter Skinner]

Your analogy to Usain Bolt is off base. Equal hardware is much more interesting from a competitive standpoint.

You do realize that not all programs are optimized specifically for Intel or AMD right? One performs better here or there, so how exactly do you make it equal?

Just because you give everyone a Q6600, doesn't mean everyone can USE that Q6600 or that everyone will RUN equally on that hardware.

Quote from Days of Thunder: "There's nothing stock about a stock car!"

So even if we give everyone a single core system (which to me says "Hey look.. paint's drying!"), not everyone will RUN equally on that hardware.

I can't think of another sport that states you must use equal equipment. Every sport on the planet is about bringing out the very best in equipment, teams, individuals. Why even both if you want everything to be equal?

Doesn't make sense to me.

What's next, everyone has to program in the same programming language, represent the board the same way, AND use the same operating system?

Yawn... call me when it's over and tell me who won.

Peter

[Laskos]

Your analogy to Usain Bolt is off base. Equal hardware is much more interesting from a competitive standpoint.

You do realize that not all programs are optimized specifically for Intel or AMD right? One performs better here or there, so how exactly do you make it equal?

Just because you give everyone a Q6600, doesn't mean everyone can USE that Q6600 or that everyone will RUN equally on that hardware.

Quote from Days of Thunder: "There's nothing stock about a stock car!"

....
Peter

LOL

Not only funny, misplaced and badly chosen analogy with Bolt, but a continuous silly, wrong argumentation. The CCT, WCCC and similar crap "tourneys" defenders need some medical attention, really, are you sick about your useless "tourneys"?. Re-read your statement: because one engine would run 10% slower on a particular hardware (and not exactly equal, as you would desire), it's much fairer to have participants having 30000% advantage.

Kai

[Houdini]

You did however manage to once again skip right over the question of whether Houdini is completely original code written by yourself. Being that you continue avoid answering this question speaks volumes; thus the reason Houdini is classified as a "derivative".

Yawn.
How many times do I need to repeat that Houdini is original at the source code level, and doesn't contain any licensed code other than the Gaviota and Nalimov EGTB code?
If you search the forum (and/or the Rybka forum) you'll find several occurrences of my saying so.
My current reply will certainly not stop you from asking the same kind of question in 6 months time, pretend I never answered it, and then make big statements about "speaking volumes"...

Robert

[Peter Skinner]

Yawn.
How many times do I need to repeat that Houdini is original at the source code level, and doesn't contain any licensed code other than the Gaviota and Nalimov EGTB code?
If you search the forum (and/or the Rybka forum) you'll find several occurrences of my saying so.
My current reply will certainly not stop you from asking the same kind of question in 6 months time, pretend I never answered it, and then make big statements about "speaking volumes"...

Robert

Ok so it includes "public domain" code, and was not 100% originally written by yourself. Thank you for your answer.

Peter

[Peter Skinner]

LOL

Not only funny, misplaced and badly chosen analogy with Bolt, but a continuous silly, wrong argumentation. The CCT, WCCC and similar crap "tourneys" defenders need some medical attention, really, are you sick about your useless "tourneys"?. Re-read your statement: because one engine would run 10% slower on a particular hardware (and not exactly equal, as you would desire), it's much fairer to have participants having 30000% advantage.

Kai

And you realize that if you want an equal hardware/book tournament, you essentially have a rating list with massive error margins due to lack of game, right?

Rating list:

1. Equal hardware
2. Equal book
3. Games to support who is #1.
4. Reduced error margins

Your proposed tournament:

1. Equal hardware
2. Equal book
3. Games to support who is #1

There are what.. 6 rating lists quoted on this forum?

Do you not see the flawed logic behind a COMPETITION where you want everything to be equal?

Someone better call the organizers over at London 2012 and tell them to scrap the Olympics. No one wants to see a COMPETITION where everything is used to attain a WIN. They want everyone to come first..

Peter

[LudiBuda]

Hi Richard,

I think everyone here appreciates your honesty. Thanks.
My reasons for disassembling H1.5 are exactly the same. I would have only but respect for Houdard if he decided to come clean. Don't understand his stubborn denials in the face of the obvious.
I even found the same typo in both H1.5 and Robolitto. That's possible only if he did copy & paste, so his claim about the originality on the source code level (whatever that means) is not true.

I think all top programmers took ideas from Ippo and don't see any difference between that and code copping. Everyone is 'guilty'. Some more some less. These endless discussions should stop. People running tournaments should use similarity detector or any other tool and make their own decisions about which engines they want to test. Same goes for customers of commercial engines.

Alex

[tomgdrums]

LOL

Not only funny, misplaced and badly chosen analogy with Bolt, but a continuous silly, wrong argumentation. The CCT, WCCC and similar crap "tourneys" defenders need some medical attention, really, are you sick about your useless "tourneys"?. Re-read your statement: because one engine would run 10% slower on a particular hardware (and not exactly equal, as you would desire), it's much fairer to have participants having 30000% advantage.

Kai

And you realize that if you want an equal hardware/book tournament, you essentially have a rating list with massive error margins due to lack of game, right?

Rating list:

1. Equal hardware
2. Equal book
3. Games to support who is #1.
4. Reduced error margins

Your proposed tournament:

1. Equal hardware
2. Equal book
3. Games to support who is #1

There are what.. 6 rating lists quoted on this forum?

Do you not see the flawed logic behind a COMPETITION where you want everything to be equal?

Someone better call the organizers over at London 2012 and tell them to scrap the Olympics. No one wants to see a COMPETITION where everything is used to attain a WIN. They want everyone to come first..

Peter

In soccer they use the same ball for both sides. In baseball they have regulations as to the bat and ball. (ie: aluminum bats make the ball go farther) So what occurs is a competition of talent and skill.

People don't have to use the SAME computer just equal. Ie: everyone uses x amount of cores and everyone is 64 bit. Simple but it makes the competition more fun.

Because if Rybka Cluster on 8 megamillion cores wins a tournament over Houdini on 5 cores. That means nothing to me!

BUT if either one wins the tournament on = number of cores than that was a competition.

You need to get past the Olympics analogy.

And per your equipment argument:

One of the greatest golfers of all time, Jack Nicklaus, has for years called for Golfers to be required to use the same ball and have certain requirements for clubs. Nicklaus wants Gold competitions to be about the skill and talent NOT the equipment.

[Peter Skinner]

In soccer they use the same ball for both sides. In baseball they have regulations as to the bat and ball. (ie: aluminum bats make the ball go farther) So what occurs is a competition of talent and skill.

If you want to take Baseball as an example, really the only thing "equal" is the ball itself and possibly the uniforms.

Bats have different weights. Gloves are different. Shoes are different. Stadiums are different.

People don't have to use the SAME computer just equal. Ie: everyone uses x amount of cores and everyone is 64 bit. Simple but it makes the competition more fun.

BUT if either one wins the tournament on = number of cores than that was a competition.

Ok, so someone shows up with a quad socket Pentium Pro vs someone using the latest generation Intel quad core system. Technically, all are using 4 cores. Would that still be interesting?

You need to get past the Olympics analogy.

Why? There is _nothing_ equal about sports apart from the venue.

And per your equipment argument:

One of the greatest golfers of all time, Jack Nicklaus, has for years called for Golfers to be required to use the same ball and have certain requirements for clubs. Nicklaus wants Gold competitions to be about the skill and talent NOT the equipment.

Sports and specifically competition is about utilizing not only skill, but hardware, equipment, training locations, training methods.. the list goes on. The venue is really the only equal thing for each participant. After that, it is about who is prepared the best to win. That encompasses everything that goes into that win.

Even in the last WC match between Anand vs Gelfand, their chairs were different. The venue and board were the only equal things about it. Just because Anand won, does that make him the best player in the World? No, it just means he won that competition.

Luck also plays a factor in competitions. How do you equalize that?

Peter