World Computer Chess Championship ?

[Don]

......There is a procedure to determine who the world champion is and there is. It should not be open the cheaters and copiers and it isn't......

How would you know that unless every engine was put under the same scrutiny as the chosen few?

Every engine? The way this works is that there has to be an accusation by one of the authors that someone is plagiarizing their work - in this case it was Fabien who made the accusation. The ICGA did NOT make the accusation.

It's ridiculously impractical for the ICGA to just launch a thorough investigation of every program in every tournament every time, taking a kind of paranoid (McCarthyism) stance that everyone must be guilty.

I don't known how things work in your part of the world but it would be pretty horrible to be around a culture like the one you suggest, that everyone should be investigated just in case they might be doing something wrong.

Isn't random drug testing like that? Perhaps they should randomly select two participating engines to scrutinise each year, with a rider that it can't be the same engine twice in a three year period.

They could do something like that, but I don't believe it would come out the way you think it would. By your implication you may have bought in to the argument that everyone is guilty but only a couple of people got caught. The computer chess community is pretty sharp and it's almost impossible to get away with this for very long. To underscore this principle the players in the online chess club can tell pretty quickly if you are using a computer to cheat and you will get flagged.

But this is a lot like life, we generally wait for an accusation before launching investigations and it's usually up the victim to take some interest in the process even though that is usually not a hard and fast requirement. In a scenario like you describe the victim could be every competitor in the tournament but I believe there should at least be a viable complaint of some kind before launching investigations, otherwise the ICGA becomes the oppressive tyrannical organization that a few extremists are accusing them of.

[chrisw]

......There is a procedure to determine who the world champion is and there is. It should not be open the cheaters and copiers and it isn't......

How would you know that unless every engine was put under the same scrutiny as the chosen few?

Every engine? The way this works is that there has to be an accusation by one of the authors that someone is plagiarizing their work - in this case it was Fabien who made the accusation. The ICGA did NOT make the accusation.

It's ridiculously impractical for the ICGA to just launch a thorough investigation of every program in every tournament every time, taking a kind of paranoid (McCarthyism) stance that everyone must be guilty.

I don't known how things work in your part of the world but it would be pretty horrible to be around a culture like the one you suggest, that everyone should be investigated just in case they might be doing something wrong.

Isn't random drug testing like that? Perhaps they should randomly select two participating engines to scrutinise each year, with a rider that it can't be the same engine twice in a three year period.

They could do something like that, but I don't believe it would come out the way you think it would. By your implication you may have bought in to the argument that everyone is guilty but only a couple of people got caught. The computer chess community is pretty sharp and it's almost impossible to get away with this for very long. To underscore this principle the players in the online chess club can tell pretty quickly if you are using a computer to cheat and you will get flagged.

But this is a lot like life, we generally wait for an accusation before launching investigations and it's usually up the victim to take some interest in the process even though that is usually not a hard and fast requirement. In a scenario like you describe the victim could be every competitor in the tournament but I believe there should at least be a viable complaint of some kind before launching investigations, otherwise the ICGA becomes the oppressive tyrannical organization that a few extremists are accusing them of.

For someone who does a lot of accusing of others of "ranting" and/or "being rude", you set a fine example yourself

However, the world view "everyone is guilty but only one got caught" that you accuse Banks of holding, is not actually the argument put forward. The real argument is:

a) there's no scientific proof without some control aspects, and there are no control aspects or comparators in this case.

b) in a competitive field where an organisation makes its own rules (allegedly on the basis of majority competitor desire) then it is necessary to know what are the "general principles of development used in practice" else the risk is run of the organisation becoming majority ruled as a Union of Failed Competitors where strong newcomers are hypocritically picked upon and excluded.

[chrisw]

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:

I have to second this. I have no interest in partecipating in tournaments (and this surely will not change in the future), but I really enjoyed Martin's one ! At the fun level it was really much more awesome than the traditional ones. The fact that it didn't pretend to attribute void "titles" to the winner, but just fun to the people watching was a big plus !

Marco, this is all true. However every sport that takes itself seriously has a world championship. We once had an organization that did a good job but then ICGA recently decided to commit suicide, not realizing the times they are living in, not willing to change, and in the hypothetical case they finally would see the light there is this Rybka verdict that will be a millstone around their neck to make any change.

So we are on our own.

What if:

A new organization that organizes a yearly online WCCC. Webcam obliged to avoid cheating, life coverage of every move plus depth, scores and mainlines. Participants have to undergo the similarity tester to be accepted.

Would you play?

Robert ?

Don ?

Richard ?

Good idea. Internet changed everything. The old system of requiring competitors to give up one to two weeks and travel to Beijing or wherever, plus costs and travel, may have worked when there was no other possibility to communicate or get to know others in the field, but now it serves only to exclude those who cannot make the time/money/travel commitment. A proper world championship needs to be exclusive and not discriminatory. To date the format has discriminated against the infirm, the very poor, third world programmers, the handicapped, the busy, and, in the case of Jakarta 1996(?) against Jews for being Israeli citizens. Internet levels everything democratically, ICGA/Levy showed themselves to be stuck in the past since 1990's and before, it's time to move on with younger souls who can create anew.

[Albert Silver]

Good idea. Internet changed everything. The old system of requiring competitors to give up one to two weeks and travel to Beijing or wherever, plus costs and travel, may have worked when there was no other possibility to communicate or get to know others in the field, but now it serves only to exclude those who cannot make the time/money/travel commitment. A proper world championship needs to be exclusive and not discriminatory. To date the format has discriminated against the infirm, the very poor, third world programmers, the handicapped, the busy, and, in the case of Jakarta 1996(?) against Jews for being Israeli citizens. Internet levels everything democratically, ICGA/Levy showed themselves to be stuck in the past since 1990's and before, it's time to move on with younger souls who can create anew.

There is an upside to all this. With the number of participants trimmed down to 4-5, and all of them legacy engines, CS Tal has real chances of becoming champion. And I do not mean a modernized recoding either!

[Rebel]

Rybka3 - I never looked into the binary. I have R3 equivalent source code from Yuri O.

With or without Vas permission ?

[Rebel]

I believe what most are trying to get across here is Houdini wouldn't exist without the initial RE of Rybka.

I assume you are implying here the Ippolit->Rybka connection.

This is in a way correct, but only indirectly.

Some people here are worshiping a mantra (Ed Schroeder comes to mind) that Ippolit is no more than a leaked/hacked source code of Rybka3. Things would be very simple if that would be the case. Alas, this is not entirely true. While I am pretty sure that the author(s) of Ippolit did a "comprehensive read" of the R3 binary, their engine was indeed written from scratch and the differences are too many to call it a clone. Especially, if someone is in doubt about the ICGA verdict in Fruit->Rybka case, the Rybka->Ippolit case looks quite innocent in comparison.

Unfortunately much of the CC people are doomed to stuck to their beliefs and hype, because not everyone can read disassembled code

Are you a proponent to declare Ippolit as an original engine?

[IanO]

I would also prefer that the ICGA call the current event the "Computer Chess Olympiad", as it is not really a world championship any longer. In its current quaint format (moves made by people on a physical board!) it is suitable as a social event for academics, just like the other Computer Olympiad events, and the oldies tournaments for dedicated computer enthusiasts.

However, the state of the art in computer chess has moved from commercial and academia to the amateur, and the championship format should reflect that. I propose the formation of a new world championship organization, run by the programmers and tasked with organizing an annual online tournament, similar in format to the other online tournaments. This would require neither an expensive venue, nor travel from the participants, so costs should be low.

Any criteria placed on the participants? The difference in opinion concerning the inclusion of engines based on Ippolit/Strelka/Fruit needs to be ironed out if a new world championship organization is to have the support of all authors.

That isn't for me to decide. It would be up to the membership of competitors in the new organization. However, my own opinion is that it the ruleset must allow inclusion of the top competitors in the rating lists (Houdini, Rybka, Stockfish, Critter, Komodo). Otherwise, it would no longer really be a world championship. So I guess I land on the side of leniency as far as derivatives go. And after all, there is more to the competition than raw engine strength. There is also engine debugging, book tuning against the field of competitors, and acquisition of hardware.

It might also lend some interest to move toward an invitational series of matches like the human world championships. Playing the match meta-game is currently an unsolved problem in computer chess.

[bob]

......There is a procedure to determine who the world champion is and there is. It should not be open the cheaters and copiers and it isn't......

How would you know that unless every engine was put under the same scrutiny as the chosen few?

Every engine? The way this works is that there has to be an accusation by one of the authors that someone is plagiarizing their work - in this case it was Fabien who made the accusation. The ICGA did NOT make the accusation.

It's ridiculously impractical for the ICGA to just launch a thorough investigation of every program in every tournament every time, taking a kind of paranoid (McCarthyism) stance that everyone must be guilty.

I don't known how things work in your part of the world but it would be pretty horrible to be around a culture like the one you suggest, that everyone should be investigated just in case they might be doing something wrong.

Isn't random drug testing like that? Perhaps they should randomly select two participating engines to scrutinise each year, with a rider that it can't be the same engine twice in a three year period.

They could do something like that, but I don't believe it would come out the way you think it would. By your implication you may have bought in to the argument that everyone is guilty but only a couple of people got caught. The computer chess community is pretty sharp and it's almost impossible to get away with this for very long. To underscore this principle the players in the online chess club can tell pretty quickly if you are using a computer to cheat and you will get flagged.

But this is a lot like life, we generally wait for an accusation before launching investigations and it's usually up the victim to take some interest in the process even though that is usually not a hard and fast requirement. In a scenario like you describe the victim could be every competitor in the tournament but I believe there should at least be a viable complaint of some kind before launching investigations, otherwise the ICGA becomes the oppressive tyrannical organization that a few extremists are accusing them of.

For someone who does a lot of accusing of others of "ranting" and/or "being rude", you set a fine example yourself

However, the world view "everyone is guilty but only one got caught" that you accuse Banks of holding, is not actually the argument put forward. The real argument is:

a) there's no scientific proof without some control aspects, and there are no control aspects or comparators in this case.

b) in a competitive field where an organisation makes its own rules (allegedly on the basis of majority competitor desire) then it is necessary to know what are the "general principles of development used in practice" else the risk is run of the organisation becoming majority ruled as a Union of Failed Competitors where strong newcomers are hypocritically picked upon and excluded.

A note. I do not see "strong newcomers are hypocritically picked upon and excluded." Some examples:

Belle after chess 4.x had dominated for years.

Cray Blitz and Hitech, after Belle appeared invincible.

Deep Thought, same deal.

Can you spell "chess genius"? Or "shredder"? Or "fritz"?

Even Rybka was not considered a derivative until several years after it appeared, after extensive reverse-engineering showed it was far more similar to Fruit than would happen by pure chance.

It has simply become easier to "look" inside because of commercial programs. Back in the earlier days where there were no commercial programs that were strong enough to even remotely challenge for titles, copies of those programs that were winning were not available. Everything was private except for a group of us that openly shared ideas through exchanging source or via the ICGA journal or whatever. But when a program goes commercial, the binary becomes available, and potentially damaging evidence is there for the taking. And we have reached the point where we are today. Not because of hypocrisy, but because of availability (not to forget the ethically-challenged individuals that are copying code and then claiming it is original.)

The ICGA, and other such organizations, are NOT about quashing competition, they are about exactly the opposite thing. If competition dies, so does the sponsoring organization, no matter what the activity. There's a ton of hyperbole about the ICGA's decision regarding Rybka, and now some other participants where protests have been made. But it is just that, hyperbole. Every activity has its rule-breakers. Hopefully most, if not all, get caught. But every one that is caught is a plus, overall...

[bob]

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:

I have to second this. I have no interest in partecipating in tournaments (and this surely will not change in the future), but I really enjoyed Martin's one ! At the fun level it was really much more awesome than the traditional ones. The fact that it didn't pretend to attribute void "titles" to the winner, but just fun to the people watching was a big plus !

Marco, this is all true. However every sport that takes itself seriously has a world championship. We once had an organization that did a good job but then ICGA recently decided to commit suicide, not realizing the times they are living in, not willing to change, and in the hypothetical case they finally would see the light there is this Rybka verdict that will be a millstone around their neck to make any change.

So we are on our own.

What if:

A new organization that organizes a yearly online WCCC. Webcam obliged to avoid cheating, life coverage of every move plus depth, scores and mainlines. Participants have to undergo the similarity tester to be accepted.

Would you play?

Robert ?

Don ?

Richard ?

"webcam to avoid cheating?"

Jan Louman broke the rule concerning no operator influence, multiple times. We just happened to catch him on video to make the point. Webcams won't do a thing regarding cheating...

[Peter Skinner]

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