mcostalba wrote:Joerg Oster wrote: But why didn't the programmers react when Ippolit & Co. appeared?
The programmers reacted immediately...reading the sources and taking all the good ideas
I have done so, and I am sure I was not the only one (of course all the top engine authors did the same).
But I see that we are mixing two differnt topics here.
The first topic is the right of a tournament organization to allow the engines that they want, publishing some rules that engines must follow to be allowed in the tournament. I have nothing against this, I can also decide to make a tournament with all the engines that start with 'Sto' and end with 'fish'
or anything else that it comes to my mind: torunament is mine and I decide who is in and who is out.
The second topic (and the object of my criticism) is to call my above tournament "World Chess Championship". This is something that IMO is very pretending from the tournament organizizers, and, in this case is, IMHO, absolutely baseless becuase those 11 engines in
no way represent the "World".
And yet, it is a competition that has been held 19 times, starting in 1974. And at one time, the term "World Computer Chess Championship" was applicable. I do not find it pretending on the part of the organizers to call it the World Championship.
However, I do think they need to see the trend (lower participation) and adjust to the times. The field of authors is much larger and diverse than it once was. Many can not afford to travel to China or to Japan (were these legitimate locations for WCCC tournaments or vacations?). Even holding the event in the Netherlands, while great for Dutch participants, is not a great locale for competitors who live much farther away. Instead of expecting the authors to come to the ICGA, the ICGA needs to come to the authors to increase interest/participation. By that, I mean entice more authors to interact with the ICGA. In terms of the WCCC, I think that there should be satellite locations in addition to the main tournament location. For example (not to be American-centric), the possibility of a satellite location in the US may have enticed several American authors to participate. Also, having two divisions, one for original programs and one open to all programs, may increase interest.
My suggestions may have little merit, but it is obvious that the title "World Computer Chess Champion" has much less import in the aftermath of the Rybka affair. I have to sort of agree with you, Marco. The title is baseless at the moment. The ICGA needs to do some work to increase the interest of computer chess programmers. It would be sad to see it become totally irrelevant in the computer chess community, given its origins and its role in the history of computer chess.
