ICGA rule #2 / opening books / Diep-Crafty, Turino 2006

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

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Peter Berger
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:56 pm

ICGA rule #2 / opening books / Diep-Crafty, Turino 2006

Post by Peter Berger » Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:57 am

I have read some of the posts concerning the clone wars and the ruling of ICGA concerning Rybka. I am no chess programmer, so I have nothing to add to that one ( so sorry for not starting another thread about it ;) ) .

But rule #2 made me think a lot.

I will try to explain my concerns with a sample ICGA tournament game:

[Event "14th World Computer Chess Championship"]
[Site "Turin, Italy"]
[Date "2006.05.30"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Diep"]
[Black "Crafty"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Bf4 O-O 7. Qd2 c6 8.
O-O-O b5 9. f3 b4 10. Nce2 c5 11. Nb3 Nc6 12. Bxd6 c4 13. Nc5 Qa5 14. Bxe7
Nxe7 15. Qd6 Nf5 16. exf5 Qxa2 17. g4 a5 18. Rd4 Re8 19. Kd1 Qxb2 20. Nc1 b3
21. cxb3 cxb3 22. Bd3 a4 23. Re1 Rxe1+ 24. Kxe1 Qxc1+ 25. Ke2 Bb7 26. Qd8+ Ne8
27. Qe7 Bc6 28. Bc4 Nf6 29. Bxf7+ Kh8 30. Nd3 b2 31. Rd8+ Rxd8 32. Qxd8+ Be8
33. Bxe8 Qc2+ 34. Ke3 Nd5+ 35. Kd4 Qc3+ 36. Ke4 Qc7 37. Qxc7 Nxc7 38. Nxb2 a3
39. Bf7 axb2 40. Ba2 Nb5 41. Kd3 Na3 42. g5 b1=B+ 43. Bxb1 Nxb1 44. h4 Kg8 45.
h5 Kf8 46. f4 Ke7 47. Kd4 Nd2 48. Ke3 Nc4+ 49. Kd4 Nd6 50. Ke5 Nf7+ 51. Kd5 h6
52. f6+ gxf6 53. g6 Nd8 54. f5 Nb7 55. Kc6 Na5+ 0-1

The position after 18. ...Re8 is – + , and this was the last book move by Crafty.

When I saw 7. Qd2 I knew at once that Diep was toast. For engines of that time ( I don't know about current ones) walking into that line as white meant sudden death. Even patzer me was able to beat Fritz and Shredder with the black pieces in a fair game on my home computer.

Now if this were my own finding, or Crafty's or Bob Hyatt's, all would be perfectly fine.

But all relevant analysis here was done by German IM Christian Seel and published in 2005 in his excellent book „Geheimwaffe Philidor“. I verified his analyis with Fritz, but this can hardly be called original work :) .

Instead Christian Seel should have been listed as one of the authors of Crafty for Turino, if I understand some of the reasoning in the heated discussions correctly.

Peter

LucenaTheLucid
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:16 am

Re: ICGA rule #2 / opening books / Diep-Crafty, Turino 2006

Post by LucenaTheLucid » Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:10 am

Hi Peter,

Just a small side question: Does someone other than Vincent handle Diep's opening book duties?

tmokonen
Posts: 994
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: ICGA rule #2 / opening books / Diep-Crafty, Turino 2006

Post by tmokonen » Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:18 am

LucenaTheLucid wrote:Hi Peter,

Just a small side question: Does someone other than Vincent handle Diep's opening book duties?
http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Diep

"Diep, while playing tournaments, had various book authors over the time, Carlos Pesce at the WMCCC 2001, Eros Riccio at the WCCC 2006, and Arturo Ochoa at most other tournaments."

Gerd Isenberg
Posts: 2125
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:47 pm
Location: Hattingen, Germany

Re: ICGA rule #2 / opening books / Diep-Crafty, Turino 2006

Post by Gerd Isenberg » Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:49 am

Hi Peter,

I think one book author mentioned who did the whole book editing work is appropriate, otherwise you would end up with a huge list of authors starting with Ruy López de Segura, Philidor etc.. I guess there is no copyright on a single bookline or idea, only on annotations or a huge collection of one system. So taking a line/opening idea by some chess player and checking/analyzing sidelines by yourself, entering it into the opening book of an engine qualifies to claim authorship of the book.

Of course all engine authors may use a "default" disclaimer, giving credit to thousands of chess masters, and hundreds of researcher/chess programmers, giving credit to booklines and chess programming ideas concerning minimax, alpha-beta, pvs, mtd(f), null-move, aggressive LMR, all the other pruning-, reduction- and extension techniques, move-ordering heuristics, trans-table, bitboards, 0x88, vector attacks, piece-square tables, etc ...

Cheers,
Gerd

bob
Posts: 20373
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: ICGA rule #2 / opening books / Diep-Crafty, Turino 2006

Post by bob » Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:11 pm

Peter Berger wrote:I have read some of the posts concerning the clone wars and the ruling of ICGA concerning Rybka. I am no chess programmer, so I have nothing to add to that one ( so sorry for not starting another thread about it ;) ) .

But rule #2 made me think a lot.

I will try to explain my concerns with a sample ICGA tournament game:

[Event "14th World Computer Chess Championship"]
[Site "Turin, Italy"]
[Date "2006.05.30"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Diep"]
[Black "Crafty"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Bf4 O-O 7. Qd2 c6 8.
O-O-O b5 9. f3 b4 10. Nce2 c5 11. Nb3 Nc6 12. Bxd6 c4 13. Nc5 Qa5 14. Bxe7
Nxe7 15. Qd6 Nf5 16. exf5 Qxa2 17. g4 a5 18. Rd4 Re8 19. Kd1 Qxb2 20. Nc1 b3
21. cxb3 cxb3 22. Bd3 a4 23. Re1 Rxe1+ 24. Kxe1 Qxc1+ 25. Ke2 Bb7 26. Qd8+ Ne8
27. Qe7 Bc6 28. Bc4 Nf6 29. Bxf7+ Kh8 30. Nd3 b2 31. Rd8+ Rxd8 32. Qxd8+ Be8
33. Bxe8 Qc2+ 34. Ke3 Nd5+ 35. Kd4 Qc3+ 36. Ke4 Qc7 37. Qxc7 Nxc7 38. Nxb2 a3
39. Bf7 axb2 40. Ba2 Nb5 41. Kd3 Na3 42. g5 b1=B+ 43. Bxb1 Nxb1 44. h4 Kg8 45.
h5 Kf8 46. f4 Ke7 47. Kd4 Nd2 48. Ke3 Nc4+ 49. Kd4 Nd6 50. Ke5 Nf7+ 51. Kd5 h6
52. f6+ gxf6 53. g6 Nd8 54. f5 Nb7 55. Kc6 Na5+ 0-1

The position after 18. ...Re8 is – + , and this was the last book move by Crafty.

When I saw 7. Qd2 I knew at once that Diep was toast. For engines of that time ( I don't know about current ones) walking into that line as white meant sudden death. Even patzer me was able to beat Fritz and Shredder with the black pieces in a fair game on my home computer.

Now if this were my own finding, or Crafty's or Bob Hyatt's, all would be perfectly fine.

But all relevant analysis here was done by German IM Christian Seel and published in 2005 in his excellent book „Geheimwaffe Philidor“. I verified his analyis with Fritz, but this can hardly be called original work :) .

Instead Christian Seel should have been listed as one of the authors of Crafty for Turino, if I understand some of the reasoning in the heated discussions correctly.

Peter
Rule 2 is about program code, not the book. In fact, I am not sure where that analysis came from. But books have been "free" for years. At one point, Ken Thompson did the typesetting for David's volume on the Dragon, and David gave Ken permission to use all of that analysis (many many games) in Ken's opening book. Bert Gower and I personally hand-typed MCO-10, MCO-11, and big parts of ECO to create the book for Cray Blitz. The only rule that has been used in recent years is that no single "book author" can provide an opening book for more than one program. The source of the opening book material has never been discussed...

Peter Berger
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:56 pm

Re: ICGA rule #2 / opening books / Diep-Crafty, Turino 2006

Post by Peter Berger » Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:38 am

[quote="bob"Rule 2 is about program code, not the book. In fact, I am not sure where that analysis came from. But books have been "free" for years. At one point, Ken Thompson did the typesetting for David's volume on the Dragon, and David gave Ken permission to use all of that analysis (many many games) in Ken's opening book. Bert Gower and I personally hand-typed MCO-10, MCO-11, and big parts of ECO to create the book for Cray Blitz. The only rule that has been used in recent years is that no single "book author" can provide an opening book for more than one program. The source of the opening book material has never been discussed...[/quote]

But this rule is so arbitrary. Let's face it – if engines had been switched between Diep and you before the game started the result of this tournament game would have been exactly the other way round – that's way worse than a shared piece-square table in engines – it is deterministic ( if this is a word). And this was supposed to be about artifical intelligence ..

During the three years I somehow „participated“ I got the clear impression that the WCCC is simply some kind of social event ( a very nice one I might add).

The tournament director Jaap just has no clue of course ( no idea *what* he has a clue of btw :p) , but all the participants know this very well.

And tournament rules get violated right and left – I give the three most blatant examples that come to my mind instantly:

1.) Crafty-Shredder, Ramat-Gan 2004, Rd. 1

At about move 40 in a dead drawn position after a very nice game so far Crafty crashed ( you may remember as you fixed the bug before the next round). I tried to set this position back up according to the tournament rules, but as this was a real bug, this was simply impossible without Crafty crashing again.

On the other side of the board sat a determined Stephan Meyer-Kahlen, watching my efforts with interest.

The 15 minutes deadline was approaching fastly. ( too lazy to check if I remember the 15 minute thing correctly, but you guys will know the correct amount of minutes). Of course Stephan and me knew back then ( Jaap, who knows what he knows ;) .. )

Finally I decided to simply try and set up the position without history ( a clear violation of rules, and I saw in Stephan's face that he knew very well) . And even if this fact were ignored , it actually just took too long.

Now I was Mr. Unknown nice guy interested in computerchess and clearly desperate in this situation operating Crafty in such a major event for the very first time, so he decided to let it go ( which might have cost him the title btw!!) – after the game was finally running again it ended in a quick draw of course.

2.) FIBChess 2004

This was maybe one of the funniest things I ever experienced in computerchess world. FIBChess was no real competitor at all. Some Mexican(?) guy had just downloaded a very weak engine ( TSCP-like) by a Spanish original author he somehow knew personally and took it to apply for the WCCC event in Israel without the knowledge of the engine author ( btw getting all the bonusses offered back then, like travel expenses, hotel costs ..) .. :D
This was discovered during the event. But as it would have been extremley embarassing if ever found out by the public, it never made any news. The guy just got a nice free holidays :D .

3.) Junior- Crafty – Blitz event 2005

I am not 100% sure about the year, but I think I got it right. Amir Ban operated and made a operator mistake making the wrong move on the actual physical chessboard. Jaap was standing next by. I let him take it back. :)

I have no problem to understand how all the cloning discussions are very important – but ICGA-wise - they really have no standards anyway IMHO. :)

Peter

User avatar
mclane
Posts: 15713
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:40 pm
Location: US of Europe, germany
Full name: Thorsten Czub
Contact:

Re: ICGA rule #2 / opening books / Diep-Crafty, Turino 2006

Post by mclane » Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:10 am

The guy just got a nice free holidays
i guess THIS is the main intention behind the icga.

in earlier years it was about exploitation, commercial interests of levy , weiner and others. today it is mainly to visit exotic areas in the world and get a nice holiday financed by the "members".
What seems like a fairy tale today may be reality tomorrow.
Here we have a fairy tale of the day after tomorrow....

Gerd Isenberg
Posts: 2125
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:47 pm
Location: Hattingen, Germany

Re: ICGA rule #2 / opening books / Diep-Crafty, Turino 2006

Post by Gerd Isenberg » Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:49 am

As beneficiary of ICGA support in Jakarta, Ramat Gan, Turin, and Reykjavik, I agree there were issues to criticize the ICGA/ICCA and inconsistent/biased TD decisions. There were multiple TD decisions where Jaap had to decide immediately, where the agenda of the involved matter. He also allowed me with your agreement in 2006 to switch off pondering and to push the space button when I had a negative thinking time versus Crafty. I should have asked to resign or lose on time instead.

The ICGA is the organization and lobby of their members. They acted accordantly when programmers wrote an open letter concerning Rybka.

Frank Quisinsky
Posts: 4844
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:16 pm
Location: Trier, Germany
Contact:

Re: ICGA rule #2 / opening books / Diep-Crafty, Turino 2006

Post by Frank Quisinsky » Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:05 am

Hi Gerd,

ICGA should to mind all the programmers where not signature the open letter too. After my information a lot of more.

I collect the reason for the second open letter:

At the moment:
17 reasons not to signature
03 reasons to signature

The three reasons are not more important as the other 17. 12 of the 17 I added in this forum. If you have interest I can added the other 5 too.

But OK, passed ...
To look in the future is more important!

Best
Frank

PS: I can't respect the second open letter after the first one. This was really bad. I think the programmers created new problems and gave the topic to many attention. I respect the main reason but I think open letters will not solved the situation and can't be the right solution.
I like computer chess!

Gerd Isenberg
Posts: 2125
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:47 pm
Location: Hattingen, Germany

Re: ICGA rule #2 / opening books / Diep-Crafty, Turino 2006

Post by Gerd Isenberg » Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:14 am

Frank Quisinsky wrote:Hi Gerd,

ICGA should to mind all the programmers where not signature the open letter too. After my information a lot of more.

I collect the reason for the second open letter:

At the moment:
17 reasons not to signature
03 reasons to signature

The three reasons are not more important as the other 17. 12 of the 17 I added in this forum. If you have interest I can added the other 5 too.

But OK, passed ...
To look in the future is more important!

Best
Frank
Hi Frank,

sorry, I don't get what you mean with your first paragraph. Can you tell it in German?

About the number of reasons, I guess it is more about the individual importance of reasons and whether they are lineary independent ;-)

Cheers,
Gerd

Post Reply