CCRL / CEGT

[Alexander Schmidt]

Just a question, no offense

Are the ratinglists planning to test one or more Ippolit derivates?

Obviously one is already tested and it would be interesting to see if it is at least better than the free Ippolit engines.

Regards,
Alex

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Alex,

I made with Houdini a mistake in testing too. But it made no sense to delete it today. SWCR will be ended if I am ready with my ToDo list around December 2011.

Other opinion to engines by Norman.
Norman invested a lot of work and do the most here.
Robbolito / IvanHoe / Fire ...

Normally the latest one should be enough.
I can't see any reason to test one of the engines by Norman. Most interesting is the latest Fire version.

Houdini 1.0 is a 1:1 copy from one of the older IvanHoe versions.

I have no problems with the engines by Norman.

Give me one reason why the work by Norman others should not used?

Best
Frank

PS: Not all what Norman wrote I like. OK, but in all main points I believe he have right. The sources are free available, in this case I think this is right too.

[Werner]

Just a question, no offense
Are the ratinglists planning to test one or more Ippolit derivates?
Obviously one is already tested and it would be interesting to see if it is at least better than the free Ippolit engines.
Regards,
Alex

...I don´t think so

Werner, CEGT Team

[Frank Quisinsky]

Werner,

we all made mistakes with Houdini.

Companies: Selling Rybka or now Houdini (can't be right)
Users: Buy this group of engines (can't be right)
Ratinglist: We made the engines strong, gave the information to others, in case of Rybka and Houdini (can't be right).
Programmers: Gave strong sources free (long time problem, what others do with such works).

WE ALL made mistakes in the past. In the case of Houdini and Rybka I think the best solution is to delete the engines in the rating list. I think we can help with such things in a very bad situation our hobby computer chess.

Let us discuss about it via mail. Rating list people should go with a good example and should give this information to users, companies and programmers.

A reason not to test Fire or IvanHoe, or Robbolito I can't see!

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

The question: What is to do with Rybka isn't easy.
Because we have to see that the programmer of Rybka is years on 1. No other program can top this. I am sure that others used also Fruit ideas.

But I think we should go in case of Rybka the same way ICGA go. We should give others the information:

We like the honest way!
The once reason for me to thinking about to delete Rybka too.

Robert Houdert copy the most of codes (should be clear, after all ... thinking on the message by the Thinker programmer) 1:1 from IvanHoe, from the work Norman do. IvanHoe is free available, sources too (GPL).

We can't support that!

Robert Houdart wrote:
All is from myself in Open Chess Forum.

Right is:
The most is from Norman with many of my own ideas. After such a situation with free Houdini sources the situation is clear. But not after that one what Robert do here.

Best
Frank

[mwyoung]

Werner,

we all made mistakes with Houdini.

Companies: Selling Rybka or now Houdini (can't be right)
Users: Buy this group of engines (can't be right)
Ratinglist: We made the engines strong, gave the information to others, in case of Rybka and Houdini (can't be right).
Programmers: Gave strong sources free (long time problem, what others do with such works).

WE ALL made mistakes in the past. In the case of Houdini and Rybka I think the best solution is to delete the engines in the rating list. I think we can help with such things in a very bad situation our hobby computer chess.

Let us discuss about it via mail. Rating list people should go with a good example and should give this information to users, companies and programmers.

A reason not to test Fire or IvanHoe, or Robbolito I can't see!

Best
Frank

I think you all should just fold up shop right now. The public does not care about your political views on the current crop of chess programs.

If you are going to be a honest chess program tester, then do that. This is the info the public needs. You are no different then when CCRL was carrying Rybka's water.

You are not a chess program tester. You are some kind of self appointed chess advocate. Who wants to wheeled their rating list like a weapon against the people they don't agree with.

I admire the few testers that are left that test chess programs, because that is their mission.

The rest of you are a bad joke.

[michiguel]

Werner,

we all made mistakes with Houdini.

Companies: Selling Rybka or now Houdini (can't be right)
Users: Buy this group of engines (can't be right)
Ratinglist: We made the engines strong, gave the information to others, in case of Rybka and Houdini (can't be right).
Programmers: Gave strong sources free (long time problem, what others do with such works).

WE ALL made mistakes in the past. In the case of Houdini and Rybka I think the best solution is to delete the engines in the rating list. I think we can help with such things in a very bad situation our hobby computer chess.

Let us discuss about it via mail. Rating list people should go with a good example and should give this information to users, companies and programmers.

A reason not to test Fire or IvanHoe, or Robbolito I can't see!

Best
Frank

I think you all should just fold up shop right now. The public does not care about your political views on the current crop of chess programs.

If you are going to be a honest chess program tester, then do that. This is the info the public needs. You are no different then when CCRL was carrying Rybka's water.

You are not a chess program tester. You are some kind of self appointed chess advocate. Who wants to wheeled their rating list like a weapon against the people they don't agree with.

I admire the few testers that are left that test chess programs, because that is their mission.

The rest of you are a bad joke.

I think CCRL, CEGT, etc. give an outstanding service to the amateur programmers, who have no other way to measure up their progress against the constellation of engines available.

I take this opportunity to say, once again, THANKS.

Miguel

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Mark,

do you know how often I read such messages, in Gambit-Soft, Winboard, Arena times?

Perhaps 1% from the mails and messages I got.
I can live with it because this isn't important for me.
1%, 2% or 25% ... really not important!

I know most of the testers from CCRL and CEGT. Help CEGT a bit in start times with many messages about on Arena News-Ticker. Have many good contacts to CCRL and CEGT testers and respect her work. This isn't the topic for myself.

I like the work the groups do for us too, since many years. What I do is for myself not important, important for myself in only to give information and to animate others. I like that because we have a great hobby. I do that many years, over 35 Mil. page views, so this work can't be bad.

Mark, each one like this one or that one.
Like Rybka, Houdini or others.

I can understand it but I think we should solve the problems this hobby have or you will missed in the next years so many great things today are available, believe me it is allways the same.

Have a nice day!

Best
Frank

[Michel]

I think CCRL, CEGT, etc. give an outstanding service to the amateur programmers, who have no other way to measure up their progress against the constellation of engines available.

I take this opportunity to say, once again, THANKS.

+1

[bhlangonijr]

I think CCRL, CEGT, etc. give an outstanding service to the amateur programmers, who have no other way to measure up their progress against the constellation of engines available.

I take this opportunity to say, once again, THANKS.

+1

+2