2017 World Computer Software Championship 2017

[JJJ]

[It is also quite simple to prove your Komodo hate agenda from dozens of your posts, but I spare you that...

Awfully BIG of you....I'm overwhelmed.
By the way, YOUR "Hate agenda" is also quite obvious.

Look yourself when talking about hate.

[shrapnel]

[It is also quite simple to prove your Komodo hate agenda from dozens of your posts, but I spare you that...

Awfully BIG of you....I'm overwhelmed.
By the way, YOUR "Hate agenda" is also quite obvious.

Look yourself when talking about hate.

Why don't you give that advice to Guenther ? He was the one who started talking about hate, not me .
And btw, I wasn't talking to him at all, he butted in.

[IanO]

Komodo - Shredder is proving to be an interesting game of material imbalance. Queen for three pieces and pawn majority right out of the opening, and then a further exchange sac with 38.Rxd8! and giving the queen back a few moves later, a piece down for two connected passers on the sixth.

[AdminX]

Nice Prep Work!

[pgn]
[Event "WCCC 2017"]
[Site "Leiden"]
[Date "2017.07.03"]
[Round "2.2"]
[White "Komodo"]
[Black "Shredder"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B47"]
[PlyCount "98"]
[EventDate "2017.??.??"]
[WhiteClock "0:44:14"]
[BlackClock "0:12:46"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Ndb5 Qb8 7. Be3 a6 8.
Bb6 axb5 9. Nxb5 Bb4+ 10. c3 Ba5 11. Nc7+ Qxc7 12. Bxc7 Bxc7 13. Qg4 Kf8 14.
Bb5 Nf6 15. Qf3 h5 16. a4 h4 17. O-O Rh5 18. b4 Kg8 19. h3 Ne7 20. Qe3 Re5 21.
f3 Bb8 22. c4 d5 23. Qd2 Ng6 24. a5 Rh5 25. Kh1 Bf4 26. Qc2 Rg5 27. Rad1 Nh5
28. Rfe1 dxe4 29. fxe4 Bc7 30. c5 Ngf4 31. Rd2 Ng3+ 32. Kg1 Rb8 33. e5 f6 34.
Bf1 fxe5 35. Qa4 Rf5 36. b5 Rf8 37. b6 Bd8 38. Rxd8 Rxd8 39. Rxe5 Rf8 40. Bc4
Bd7 41. Qxd7 Rbd8 42. Qxd8 Rxd8 43. Kf2 Kf7 44. c6 Kf6 45. Re3 bxc6 46. a6 Nf5
47. a7 Nd6 48. Ra3 c5 49. a8=Q Rxa8 1-0

[/pgn]

[shrapnel]

Nice Prep Work!

[pgn]
[Event "WCCC 2017"]
[Site "Leiden"]
[Date "2017.07.03"]
[Round "2.2"]
[White "Komodo"]
[Black "Shredder"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B47"]
[PlyCount "98"]
[EventDate "2017.??.??"]
[WhiteClock "0:44:14"]
[BlackClock "0:12:46"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Ndb5 Qb8 7. Be3 a6 8.
Bb6 axb5 9. Nxb5 Bb4+ 10. c3 Ba5 11. Nc7+ Qxc7 12. Bxc7 Bxc7 13. Qg4 Kf8 14.
Bb5 Nf6 15. Qf3 h5 16. a4 h4 17. O-O Rh5 18. b4 Kg8 19. h3 Ne7 20. Qe3 Re5 21.
f3 Bb8 22. c4 d5 23. Qd2 Ng6 24. a5 Rh5 25. Kh1 Bf4 26. Qc2 Rg5 27. Rad1 Nh5
28. Rfe1 dxe4 29. fxe4 Bc7 30. c5 Ngf4 31. Rd2 Ng3+ 32. Kg1 Rb8 33. e5 f6 34.
Bf1 fxe5 35. Qa4 Rf5 36. b5 Rf8 37. b6 Bd8 38. Rxd8 Rxd8 39. Rxe5 Rf8 40. Bc4
Bd7 41. Qxd7 Rbd8 42. Qxd8 Rxd8 43. Kf2 Kf7 44. c6 Kf6 45. Re3 bxc6 46. a6 Nf5
47. a7 Nd6 48. Ra3 c5 49. a8=Q Rxa8 1-0

[/pgn]

No No Mr Summers, you are wrong.
Ol' Guenther will tell you that it is of " no statistical signficance"
Or maybe I'm the one who is wrong ...it IS of Statistical Significance if Komodo wins even one game, but not if Shredder wins even 6 games in a row !
What a bunch of Hypocrites !

[Leo]

TCEC is the true world championship. Can't wait to see it back.

When will it come back?

[IanO]

The WCSC games are being transmitted live here:

http://toernooien.krabbenbos.org/LiveWCSC2017.html

Results and round times are posted here:

https://icga.leidenuniv.nl/

What exactly is the uniform platform this year? I can't find it documented anywhere.

[pijl]

The WCSC games are being transmitted live here:

http://toernooien.krabbenbos.org/LiveWCSC2017.html

Results and round times are posted here:

https://icga.leidenuniv.nl/

What exactly is the uniform platform this year? I can't find it documented anywhere.

It is a quad core i7 (with hyperthreading 8 cores) and 16GB ram. As far as I could see the same computer as the previous two years.

[mjlef]

1)Komodo did not lose a single game.
2)There were not enough games to decide about the best program in the tournament.

3)Shredder is known to do relatively better in world championships maybe because of better choice of book moves against the right opponents.

Even before stockfish Shredder was often the winner of world championship when shredder did not lead rating lists and maybe they knew in the championship better what is the right opening to use.

4)I doubt if we know the strength of Shredder and Jonny that played in the tournament and they may versions that the authors still did not release.
Uri

1. "Komodo did not lose a single game". Oh really ? Then maybe Shredder also did not win a single game ? So how did they decide Shredder was the Winner of the Tournament ?
I have 5 Theories, choose one
(a) They Tossed a Coin...Heads Shredder wins, Tails Komodo loses. Fair enough ?
(b) Tournament Director was Brother-in-law of Shredder Developer.
(c) Tournament Director was Maternal Uncle of Shredder Developer.
(d) Shredder and Jonny Developers gave larger Bribes to the Tournament Director than Komodo Team.
(e) Tournament Director played an improvised version of "Inky Pinky Ponky" to decide the Winner.
2. " Not enough games". That hoary old chestnut ! Are there EVER enough games ?
3. "Better choice of Book ". What's preventing Komodo people from doing the same ? Or is having a "Better choice of Book" somehow a bad thing that should reflect negatively on Shredder ?
Please enlighten me.
4. "Unreleased versions". So what ? What's preventing Komodo team from playing a un-released version ? Do you know for sure they didn't ?
From what I understand, Komodo Team has lots of Developmental versions which they don't even give to their loyal Subscribers.
Surely they would have tried their best to win the Tournament, which would have resulted in an increase in their Sales revenue.
Or maybe you're suggesting that Komodo team felt it was beneath their dignity to try and win a Tournament in which Stockfish and Houdini were absent ?
Your arguments/excuses border on the Ridiculous !

I will skip over your joke theories and just respond to 4. We always test release versions a lot more than every development version. This takes a lot of time, and if we tried to do extensive testing on every development version, this would slow our development. The problem is that every so often, if we did release every development version, regression would sometime creep in. The longer testing we do for release versions means we are more confident a release is stronger than the last release. Development version often have lots of UCI options with confusing names. The current one has UCI options like "fullx" and "verminus". I would need to write a paragraph of two to try and explain these to new users. And we sometimes ave multiple development versions in one day. Plus I have to do 32 and 64 bit Windows compiles, a Linux compile and get a friend to do the Max OSC compile, have the web master setup the website to host a new version.... There would be no time left to work on new versions. We have been averaging about 5 release versions per year. Which I think is enough!

If there were ways to speedup the testing, I would probably release more versions.

[mjlef]

Nice Prep Work!

[pgn]
[Event "WCCC 2017"]
[Site "Leiden"]
[Date "2017.07.03"]
[Round "2.2"]
[White "Komodo"]
[Black "Shredder"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B47"]
[PlyCount "98"]
[EventDate "2017.??.??"]
[WhiteClock "0:44:14"]
[BlackClock "0:12:46"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Ndb5 Qb8 7. Be3 a6 8.
Bb6 axb5 9. Nxb5 Bb4+ 10. c3 Ba5 11. Nc7+ Qxc7 12. Bxc7 Bxc7 13. Qg4 Kf8 14.
Bb5 Nf6 15. Qf3 h5 16. a4 h4 17. O-O Rh5 18. b4 Kg8 19. h3 Ne7 20. Qe3 Re5 21.
f3 Bb8 22. c4 d5 23. Qd2 Ng6 24. a5 Rh5 25. Kh1 Bf4 26. Qc2 Rg5 27. Rad1 Nh5
28. Rfe1 dxe4 29. fxe4 Bc7 30. c5 Ngf4 31. Rd2 Ng3+ 32. Kg1 Rb8 33. e5 f6 34.
Bf1 fxe5 35. Qa4 Rf5 36. b5 Rf8 37. b6 Bd8 38. Rxd8 Rxd8 39. Rxe5 Rf8 40. Bc4
Bd7 41. Qxd7 Rbd8 42. Qxd8 Rxd8 43. Kf2 Kf7 44. c6 Kf6 45. Re3 bxc6 46. a6 Nf5
47. a7 Nd6 48. Ra3 c5 49. a8=Q Rxa8 1-0

[/pgn]

No No Mr Summers, you are wrong.
Ol' Guenther will tell you that it is of " no statistical signficance"
Or maybe I'm the one who is wrong ...it IS of Statistical Significance if Komodo wins even one game, but not if Shredder wins even 6 games in a row !
What a bunch of Hypocrites !

Neither WCSC or WCCC have enough games to reach a strong conclusion that any specific program is definitely stronger than all the rest. Seven or Nine rounds is just not enough. Even TCEC's 100 game superfinal often does not get enough games to know. Rating lists use a lot more, although at longer time controls it is hard to run enough games.