People seem to want both Houdini and Rybka to be able to participate in the same world championship or other event. Any proposed wording of an improvement to "Rule 2" would need to allow for both programs to participate, but eliminate ones that are "in between" these programs, such as the Ippo, Robo, Ivanhoe, etc. programs. Would Critter be allowed? Why or why not? (Same goes for Houdini, for that matter.) There would need to be something in the rule to delineate these circumstances without making the rule(s) as complicated as the IRS rules.
Sorry, but I really have no ideas right now on how this could be written--I'm just hoping that someone who is smarter than me is able to come up with something clear, concise, and sufficient and post the idea here for further discussion.
There is no need to change the rule. It is perfect for its purpose!
Houdini was ultimately accepted by the vast majority of end users- not necessarily over its politics in programming -but by being judged for its ability in performance.
This discussion has left far too much discretion up to the programmers to draw the line in the sand as to what is acceptable in the hobby. End users are notorious for giving a thumbs down to engines that are derivatives because of failed performance -with no significant show of advancement.
What is the overall contribution to the hobby by way of performance should be the guiding principle-
However, if a programmers has been known to go out of his/her way to RE an engine of its secrets only to fully copy and somehow those secrets get out to the general chess programming community -that programmer should be banned from competition. The code is going to be exploited -there is nothing one can do about that.
Still, in order to have a legitimate championship, we must have some rules. Clearly, we must have something to prevent J. Random Troll from taking Houdini, changing a couple of things, citing Houdart for his contributions, and having a new engine; and to prevent Willy Wally Weasel from taking JRT's engine, changing a few things, citing JRT and Houdart, and naming his own new engine, and having Houdart, Rajlich, JRT, and WWW all enter the same championship. While this may seem like an extreme situation, we obviously need rules to prevent such a thing from occurring. Acceptance by end users doesn't work--this would have eliminated Deep Thought, Deep Blue, Hydra, and any other experimental hardware/software entry.
Right now I'd rather see the programming community keep it honest and not point fingers at each other as to whose more of a "Blue Blood". When they stop debating each other -at each others expense. Which is what ends up happening. Then eventually some agreement will filter through out of necessity to move on.
But they really need to be kept honest in argument. No programmer should be given a free pass by insinuation over another that his is purer when it is understood that everyone is taking liberties.
Until then you cannot hold any competition without some kind of consensus.
Out there programmers are raiding the candy store doing what Vas did 5 yeas ago- semantic equivalence be damned.
In here we are left arguing semantic equivalence - One side shifting lines around, and arguing their interpretation, while the other side - says, "No, no that's not it ! This is what it looks like!."
They should call this entire affair, "The Rorschach Semantic Equivalence Blotch Conundrum"
And you want to talk rule N#2- Rule N#1 don't talk about rule N#2!
With no rule 2, do you really want to see an event with 32 IDENTICAL copies of houdini? Each edited to change the name, only? NO? Then do you want to see 32 NEARLY IDENTICAL copies of houdini, each with the name and one scoring term changed? NO? Then you need a rule 2. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
Does the ICGA want a WCCC with second rated engine authors only, or does it want to represent computer chess?
Does the ICGA want to come back to reality and drop your SE fantasy nonsense, or does it want to neglect reality in computer chess in 2012?
Does the ICGA want to be in the spotlights, or just a Levy/scientist hobby that nobody is interested in?
Many clever and intelligent people would know what to choose.
That's how it always has been, and I somehow doubt it is going to change. The "spectator's" opinions here simply don't matter.
They do! You cannot 'sell' a world championship with second rate programs to chess players. NEVER.
After all, these events are made to attract the programmers
And these events are ONLY interesting for commercial programmers if there is PR, live coverage, the best programs taking part (in case of which a good result really counts). None of which are present at the current WCCC and because of which the WCCC is a total joke and soon will cease to exist.
Nothing to do with "putting on a show".
No PR, no live coverage, no gains from the WCCC => PROGRAMMERS ARE NOT INTERESTED.
Second rate world champion, 200 elo points behind => CHESS PLAYERS ARE NOT INTERESTED.
If you want a tournament for programmers only, you'll have to rename it.
1. 10+ years before commercial computer chess programs came on the scene, the best programs DID take part in the tournaments and the WCCC.
2. At that time those were the only programs and PC's hardly existed, certainly not available for a wide range of people.
You really can't accept the fact that this is 2012 and NOT 1980, can you!?
You are SLOWLY getting my point however. VERY slowly.
Commercial computer chess interests have not had any influence on my computer chess activities. Nor hundreds of others. Only a very few choose to jump into that category. A very tiny minority, in fact... So I assume you DO have a point???
So what? You don't play any part in the world championships and hence you are totally irrelevant regarding the WCCC and what people think of it.
Nor hundreds of others.
OK, then give us the names of one hundred computer chess programmers that are not commercially interested.
You are SLOWLY getting my point however.
Your point is very clear: your WCCC picture is not about determining the strongest program in the world, nor about PR, or about live coverage, nor about winning, nor about 'getting something back for your investment'. So my advise is: just rename the tournament. Something like 'ICGA computer chess tournament'.
My picture is also very clear: if the WCCC does not contain the best programs, it isn't worth the name 'world championship'. And if the cost for a WCCC is 40,000 bucks and participants have to PAY for participating, it is clear that somebody puts a large sum of money in his own pockets without giving ANYTHING back: no exposure, no PR, zero. And hence the tournament is doomed.
You can talk about 'purpose', 'charter', 'R&D' and more academic nonsense, but the tournament is stone dead in the current format. Any sensible programmer will not join a tournament in which he has to pay money, gets nothing in return and in which he senses that some ICGA officials are just organising the tourney to collect money.
Must be really sad to live in a world of people with ethics when you apparently have none???
That you come up with tournaments we were not discussing, just shows AGAIN what a complete idiot you are.
Nor the others either. The rule is widely accepted and followed. Just a "few" try to do things "the easy way" and violate the rule...
The rule is widely accepted and followed.
Not in Leiden, where Rybka is allowed to play and which organisation didn't swallow your lies.
>>The rule is widely accepted and followed.
>Not in Leiden
I think that Leiden still has something similar to Rule 2--it's just that they don't accept the ICGA investigation results saying that Rule 2 was violated, so that's a bit of a different argument. What I see are two different subjects:
(1) Rybka didn't violate any objective interpretation of Rule 2. This is being discussed thoroughly throughout the forum.
(2) Rybka certainly didn't violate any sensible version of Rule 2 starting in 2007 and thereafter. I'm mainly hoping in this thread that we can clarify what "sensible" is, something that could be useful in the future.
We played "without customers of any kind" for MANY years. Starting in the late 60's... and computer chess thrived in spite of that "lack" eh?
Ought to be interesting to see how you answer that. If something doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. If you keep trying to tell me it doesn't matter, that just means it matters far more than you wish.
> The "spectator's" opinions here simply don't matter.
I am always interested in Computer Chess, so should I be left in the dark?
Got any comments besides continual insults? Or is that ALL you are good for nowadays???
> But mostly nowadays I spend my time reading the musings of Bob, the master bullshitter.
> Yep. Until you actually write a chess program.Then you might have a slightly different perspective on this copying nonsense.
What a lot of nonsense you do come out with!
I take it you also think that I would need to be a doctor to question the practices of my physician ,when he/she makes a diagnosis, or writes me out a prescription that I feel is going to do me more harm than good?
Do YOU tell your doctor what to do, how to do it, when to do it, how to interpret his test results, how to interpret the CT scans and X-rays?
Come to think of it, you probably do...
> I think you would need to be a doctor to question his techniques and approaches, yes.
That is preposterous! I don't have to be a doctor to question his technique and/or approach -I would have to be a doctor to perform that technique and cultivate his approach! But I most certainly can question it by virtue of its success or failure.
>> The "spectator's" opinions here simply don't matter.
> I am always interested in Computer Chess, so should I be left in the dark?
You have to give it to him -he does try really hard to be Crafty in the way he frames his arguments.
Tell him that was an illegal move!
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill