chessgames.com

TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
World Computer Chess Championship Tournament

Junior (Computer)6/8(+4 -0 =4)[view games]
HIARCS (Computer)5.5/8(+3 -0 =5)[view games]
Shredder (Computer)5.5/8(+3 -0 =5)[view games]
Jonny (Computer)5/8(+3 -1 =4)[view games]
Pandix (Computer)5/8(+3 -1 =4)[view games]
The Baron (Computer)4.5/8(+3 -2 =3)[view games]
booot (Computer)3/8(+2 -4 =2)[view games]
Rookie (Computer)1.5/8(+1 -6 =1)[view games]
Woodpusher (Computer)0/8(+0 -8 =0)[view games]

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 36  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Pandix vs Rookie 1-071 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipA29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto
2. HIARCS vs booot 1-053 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipD17 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
3. Woodpusher vs The Baron 0-143 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipE20 Nimzo-Indian
4. booot vs Shredder 0-1103 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipE62 King's Indian, Fianchetto
5. The Baron vs HIARCS  ½-½88 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
6. Jonny vs Pandix  0-142 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipD58 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower (Makagonov-Bondarevsky) Syst
7. Rookie vs Woodpusher 1-055 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipC45 Scotch Game
8. Junior vs Jonny ½-½55 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipC18 French, Winawer
9. Shredder vs Pandix  ½-½46 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipD35 Queen's Gambit Declined
10. booot vs Junior 0-136 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipA15 English
11. Woodpusher vs Shredder  0-138 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipE91 King's Indian
12. Jonny vs Rookie 1-058 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipD32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
13. Junior vs The Baron 1-041 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipB08 Pirc, Classical
14. Pandix vs booot  ½-½72 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipA13 English
15. HIARCS vs Woodpusher 1-033 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipA01 Nimzovich-Larsen Attack
16. The Baron vs Jonny  ½-½51 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipC10 French
17. The Baron vs Pandix 1-011 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipC54 Giuoco Piano
18. Rookie vs Junior 0-138 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipB83 Sicilian
19. booot vs Woodpusher  1-045 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipC11 French
20. Pandix vs HIARCS ½-½120 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipC95 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Breyer
21. Junior vs Shredder ½-½94 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipB43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3
22. Shredder vs HIARCS  ½-½43 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
23. Jonny vs booot 1-069 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipD35 Queen's Gambit Declined
24. Rookie vs The Baron 0-1110 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipC91 Ruy Lopez, Closed
25. Shredder vs Jonny  ½-½57 2011 World Computer Chess ChampionshipD30 Queen's Gambit Declined
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 36  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-07-12  King Death: <twinlark> I'll bet he's checking out his options.
Jan-08-12  The Rocket: <twinlark:> the main problem with the rybka team response is that they complain about the rule rather than the verdict.. if they in anyway found it nonsensical they did not need to participate.. a rule can't be good enough unless it affects you and then suddenly they are outraged.... so its pretty silly
Jan-08-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  mrbasso: CB is biased, they sell Rybka after all.
Jan-08-12  AlphaMale: Not wishing to travail through all four parts of <Gross Miscarriage of Justice>, does Soren Riis identify who was responsible for writing the ICGA's report with its falsified/manipulated/misleading/misattributed code?
Jan-08-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  heuristic: the chessbase report is very good.

i found some of the terminology inconsistent (templates vs header files); OTOH the supporting URLs contain hard data to support the writing.

i found rajilich's comments to be technically correct and his situation w.r.t. source code management to be hilarous!

it names a trio of folks, one who is quite active in the newsgroup. their comments are less technical.

Jan-08-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: Riis is not unbiased though. He is (or was?) a moderator in the official Rybka forum, and also he was in the Rybka team in all that world champs. But we'll see...
Jan-08-12  Tomlinsky: I don't think that the CB article washes personally. The initialisation routines alone are in many places a direct copy, not just an implementation or inerpretation of an algorythm, repeating the exact same order of setup. That isn't a coincidence. Lifting ideas and interpreting them to suit your own code is one thing, taking someone else's source code and basically pressing the compile button is another.
Jan-08-12  AlphaMale: <The initialisation routines alone are in many places a direct copy, not just an implementation or inerpretation of an algorythm, repeating the exact same order of setup.>

So what else is a direct copy?

Jan-08-12  gezafan: What would these programs be rated? How do they compare with top human players?
Jan-09-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: The stronger programs competing here would be rated about 3000. It's difficult to assign them a meaningful human rating though.
Jan-09-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <Tomlinsky>

You posted earlier that:

<I don't think that the CB article washes personally. The initialisation routines alone are in many places a direct copy, not just an implementation or inerpretation of an algorythm, repeating the exact same order of setup.>

I don't know much about the technical issues involved but Riis seems to have addressed that point quite directly:

<Given the points Iíve outlined above what are we to make of the following categorical statements made by Zach Wegner in his ICGA report findings?

< ...[snip]

...[snip]

Because of Fruit's unique PST initialization code, the origin of Rybka's PSTs in Fruit is clear.>

These are all demonstrably incorrect and tendentious conclusions...>

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp... (about half way down Part 3 of the article)

Jan-10-12  Tomlinsky: <TL: I don't know much about the technical issues involved but Riis seems to have addressed that point quite directly>

Riis hasn't addressed that point at all apart from offering an opinion and attempting to obfuscate, as far as I can see, what is pretty much crystal clear when looking at the presented evidence of retrograde reassembled object code. In my opinion. :)

The initialisation routines and structures given as examples of direct copying, as opposed to an implementation of the same or similar 'idea(s)', are in many places in exactly the same order as each other. Even if they are initialised with different, tweaked, variables and constants this is quite obviously not a coincidence and enough on its own for the rules to have been broken.

I'm purposely sticking with one issue raised as evidence as there really is no need to argue the toss on other points with regard ethics/copyright/etc. This alone is a rule breaker and enough to claim infraction.

Chessbase and Rajlich are, in my opinion, being very disingenuous in the way they are handling this by letting a 'third party' offer opinion and insight while doing absolutely nothing to address, or be seen to address, the issue directly.

Jan-11-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: Fair enough. There's more discussion at Rybka (Computer).
Jan-11-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: For those who follow computer chess closely, would the weakest program here, Woodpusher, still have a higher estimated ELO than world champion Anand?
Jan-11-12  chessexp: NO WAY. Woodpusher is < 2000.
Jan-11-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: If Woody is so weak, then why was it invited to such an elite event?
Jan-11-12  chessexp: Anybody with an original (ie. Not Rybka) chess engine can participate. It's not really a world championship in the sense that only the strongest 3000+ can join for the fun.
Jan-11-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: Woodpusher is not found on any engine rating lists, as far as I can see. How can one say with confidence it's below 2000 without even specifying hardware?
Jan-11-12  chessexp: Woodpusher is an old private engine, I noticed its estimated rating a long time ago from somewhere I can't remember. It's not a new program.
Jan-11-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <HeMateMe> I wouldn't consider this an elite event. The following engines did not participate: Houdini, Rybka, Critter, Stockfish, Komodo, Naum, and Spike. All these engines have consistently been rated higher than the highest-entered engine entered in this event, Shredder, in the CCRL 40/40 tournaments. That is the equivalent of holding a World Championship tournament where Carlsen, Aronian, Kramnik, Anand, Radjabov, Topalov, and Karjakin did not participate. Oh, the organizers can CLAIM that this is the "World Computer Chess Championship Tournament" but in my opinion that is a meaningless claim.
Jan-11-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: Thats a good point. I didn't realize that so many heavy hitters were not at this event. I wonder why there isn't one really strong event where all the software handlers feel they MUST attend, so that we can have a truly "world computer championship"? A little financial reward would probably help things along.
Jan-11-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  Marmot PFL: <I wouldn't consider this an elite event. The following engines did not participate: Houdini, Rybka, Critter, Stockfish, Komodo, Naum, and Spike.>

Maybe they copy each other so much that they could all risk being disqualified.

Jan-11-12  chessexp: <HeMateMe> Nobody wants to finance it. FIDE doesn't care, Chessbase just wants Rybka to win the ICGA etc.
Jan-11-12  Tomlinsky: <TL> Thanks and Happy New Year.
Jan-11-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Marmot PFL> LOL! Yes, chess engine development can certainly be an incestuous enterprise!
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 10)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies