![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
We've had a lot of discussion about the need to improve upon the ICGA Rule 2 in the rules for tournaments for some future, transcending computer games association. While the wording of the ICGA's Rule 2 is clearly insufficient and allows for arbitrary interpretation, it seems difficult to come up with an improvement to this rule that both solves the problems of the current rule AND keeps out clones. Any ideas, anyone?
For starters:
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.
For starters:
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.
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["ICGA Rule 2 originality"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the engine involved in this case is not that.
There is no need to change the rule. It is perfect for its purpose!
There is no need to change the rule. It is perfect for its purpose!
I know one programmer that would benefit from being introduced to bowl of good Ganja. After no doubt he'd be sporting a durag. (and no I won't photoshop it in!)
I think there is far too much concern over #2 as it was framed by the ICGA.
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.
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.
I think that Houdini was simply accepted as an update to Rybka 4.
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.
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.
I was citing Houdini as an prime example of end user acceptance, not Willy Wally's flaming flash of a fired up smp with 6 piece endings under the hood !
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.
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.
Look! I'll say this and not post another comment on this thread!
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!
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!
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
Remove rule 2; any rule that is not enforceable is a rule that cannot work.
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
But there needs to be a rule 2, otherwise I can get a Hexedited Houdini into the competition and secure 10th place (behind the other 9 hex edited Houdinis).
You should ALWAYS "put brain in gear before putting mouth in motion."
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.
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.
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
Temper temper.
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.
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.
The ICGA simply wants a tournament without derivatives. If the "best programs" are all derivatives, then no, I don't think they are "wanted". I can only speak for myself when I say "no derivatives." I know that over the past 40+ years I have been involved, programmers have been unanimous in not wanting multiple copies of the same program, or even partial copies. If the programmers change their mind, that's what will happen. If not, it won't. After all, these events are made to attract the programmers, because others are not allowed to enter, only the authors of the engines can do that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They DO NOT. The WC is for the programmers. Always has been. Why don't you read the ICGA charter?
Nothing to do with "putting on a show".
Nothing to do with "putting on a show".
You really don't get it, do you?
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.
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.
Then I wonder why there were computer chess tournaments 10+ years BEFORE there was a commercial computer chess program?
It is so funny that when you are left with zero arguments, you start about the 'good old days' again :-).
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!?
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 can't accept the fact that commercial interests do NOT drive computer chess. Never have.
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???
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???
Commercial computer chess interests have not had any influence on my computer chess activities.
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.
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.
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
+1
He's trying to turn this thread into -" Let me show you how open I am to finding an answer to rule #2 and make the ICGA more amenable for open competition. " Too fuking lake buddy.
If the WCCC contains mostly slightly modified Robolito clones, it will ALSO be worthless. I will AGAIN remind you of the purpose of the ICGA, and the WCCC, as defined in the ICGA charter... It has NOTHING to do with commercial chess products or anything else other than people doing research and development in computer chess - the authors...
Sure Bob, the ICGA and the WCCC are only there to fulfill the wishes of a few second rated chess program authors, who pay money to participate in its 'world championship', get nothing in return and see this organisation put the money in its pockets.
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.
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.
I suppose CCT, ACCA, etc are ALSO "stone dead"??? Because they are not going to allow derivatives either.
Must be really sad to live in a world of people with ethics when you apparently have none???
Must be really sad to live in a world of people with ethics when you apparently have none???
We were talking about WCCC and ICGA. Stone dead they are.
That you come up with tournaments we were not discussing, just shows AGAIN what a complete idiot you are.
That you come up with tournaments we were not discussing, just shows AGAIN what a complete idiot you are.
No, just shows your reasoning skills are nonexistent. ACCA and CCT ALSO use ICGA rule 2. The rule that you, Ed, Chris and a very small group of others claims is "outdated."
We were talking about WCCC and ICGA. Stone dead they are.
Doesn't seem to be.
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...
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...
Any intelligent and clever computer chess programmer will realise that the sole purpose of holding an ICGA 'world championship' is to fill the pockets of David Levy. Once they understand this, they'll ban the tournament and it is dead.
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, 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 are more than just spectators in this sport -we buy the engines on display. And use the ones that show promise. Without us you're just playing with yourself!
Fine. That makes you a customer of the commercial authors. Completely irrelevant to the ICGA. They get ZERO from commercial program sales. They don't sell commercial programs either.
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?
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?
Bob, the ICGA is a ZERO!
If that is the case, why is this so high up on your priority list that you keep coming back with more and more nonsense?
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.
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.
Oh! Bob, you''re the one defending the ICGA! Why are you so bent on promoting a dead beat outfit?
If it is "dead" why do you keep bringing it up?
> If it is "dead" why do you keep bringing it up?
Because you continue to spam your tripe around that it still has life in it!
![[za]](/mwf/v12/flags/za.png "South Africa")
> The "spectator's" opinions here simply don't matter.
I am always interested in Computer Chess, so should I be left in the dark?
Yep. Until you actually write a chess program. Then you might have a slightly different perspective on this copying nonsense.
He would have to write a weak, non-competitive program to really understand your perspective.
Or he could do as you have done. Write NOTHING and understand NOTHING.
Got any comments besides continual insults? Or is that ALL you are good for nowadays???
Got any comments besides continual insults? Or is that ALL you are good for nowadays???
I like to think it's just one of the things that I'm good at. But mostly nowadays I spend my time reading the musings of Bob, the master bullshitter.
> 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?
I think you would need to be a doctor to question his techniques and approaches, yes. Otherwise you are an idiot practicing medicine without a license...
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...
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.
Judging from your responses, it is apparent that you are arguing for argument sake. Given the shallowness of your responses- I'd say , you don't seriously believe in half the things you come out with.
Funny, I was thinking the SAME thing about you. And it actually fits you far better...
>> 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