Twisted Logic new version!

[Eizenhammer]

I give you another hint how intentionally misleading your honest statements were:

Directly after your morally important and necessary accusations Sam Hamilton asks:
"Is that on ICC?"

Not even this elementary information was really in your posting ...
Sam understood that it was meant this way, as did i, of course, but again:
It is not what you wrote.

Another subtlety:
you write:
"For example, I ..."
This implies that there is more, not only this one. Another hint that it was meant as a general suspicion.
So obvious for a competent reader that one has to be blind to ignore it...

[swami]

My post stands exactly as written. Didn't mention the last ACCA event. Didn't mention any other events....

Ok, Thanks for clarifying the matter. I admit I haven't read many posts in this thread (haven't got the time to read If I may add), just read the exchanges between you and Edsel, that was all.

[Matthias Gemuh]

There is absolutely nothing wrong nor misleading about Bob's comments on what he observed on ICC.
His comments and proofs have been confirmed by the operator of the Rybka in disguise.
Why can't some people understand such basic facts ?

To Edsel:
a) admit that it is wrong to tune TwistedLogic's book on ICC with a Rybka in disguise (operator already apologized).
b) no now existing chess engine genuinely searching at 80k nps is a match for current Crafty at 20 M nps.

Matthias.

[Edsel Apostol]

Try to be a bit more precise.
Bob has not accused TwistedLogic of being a clone.
He merely said TwistedLogic was displaying dishonest search infos on ICC.

Matthias.

Mr. Hyatt: "While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified."

I thought this was clear enough, but reading skills are a rare thing here.

Then you should work on yours. "TwistedLogicCCT" is the account used in the CCT events for TwistedLogic. It says it is twisted logic. It was running Rybka. Nothing I wrote was the least bit misleading.

Everything you wrote was complete nonsense, and totally misleading. I'll tell you what a naive reader like me had to think when reading your posting:

Again, absolutely _none_ of what I wrote was "complete nonsense". The only nonsense here is what you are writing, without any thought or consideration first. The old "put mind in gear before putting fingers in motion" would be good advice. Point by point below:

It started with this theme:
"Edsel Apostol wrote:
'There's a new Twisted Logic version here:
http://www.geocities.com/ed_apostol/index.htm
Just take a look at the readme file for more information.' "

Fine, a new version, always a pleasure for everyone.
Then the shock, all of a sudden:
Bob writes:
"I am not quite sure what to make of this program, but I can tell you one thing for certain. There is a certain level of dishonesty surrounding the thing."

Wow, I was shattered. Bob is certain, something is wrong with Twisted Logic. I had not expected this, but Bob would not write such a thing without hard evidence, of course.

He goes on:
"For example, I watched Crafty lose 3 of 4 games to it last weekend."

This seemed not too convincing to me, only 4 games, does not tell you a lot, so he must mean anything else.

" It was kibitzing (TwistedLogicCCT) and claimed to be searching 80K nodes per second. "

So it is about games on ICC, hardly a serious testing environment, one should think, so what is he after?

"Hardly a serious testing environment?" When the _author_ uses that account to play in online tournaments? When the notes for the program say it is using twisted logic? When this account is entered in events with the authors claim that this is not a copy of any other existing program?

It is not a copy of any other existing program.

Au Contrare mon dieu. It _was_ a copy of another existing program on the day I was observing it. How do you continually miss that point?

I don't miss the point. I just don't agree. I don't copy any program, the operator just run Rybka at that time to test the book. Is that copying for you? Is that your definition of copying?

"I'd be willing to play _any_ program really searching 80K, when the box I was using was searching 20M nodes per second. And I would not expect to lose 3 of every 4 games. Period."

Period always convinces me: People say it rarely and only when there is no room for further debate left. And I understand now, of course, TL must be Rybka, this is what Bob is after, isn't he?

And was I wrong? You seem to miss that _tiny_ detail. It _was_ Rybka. It was claiming to be twisted logic. You do the math.

It was only Rybka at that certain time when my tester is trying out his book. It was written in his notes. You're implying that it is Rybka all the time, it is not.

I _implied_ nothing. I stated that when I watched the games, looked at the kibitzing, I was absolutely convinced that the kibitzes were nonsense. I did not imply that it was Rybka or any other program. I said it was kibitzing bogus information just as Rybka does (bogus nps, depth, etc). It was then pointed out that it _was_ Rybka, if even for an hour or two. Just happened that I was watching during that "hour or two". So you don't get away with saying it is _always_ a unique program.

Why does your tester need to use a non-TL program to test his book? That makes _absolutely_ no sense either, but I'll leave that for another discussion.

What we are talking here is an _ICC Account_, not the _program_ itself. The program itself is a _unique_ program. When you say it is not always a unique program, it implies that at some point in time it is a clone. A program is a _different entity_ than the account, can't you get that simple and basic concept? Please make clear the things you say so that we will not have any misunderstanding here. Are you claiming that TL is a clone? If not say NO, if yes then say YES, that is just as simple as that.

Why shoudn't he use Rybka to test the book? It doesn't make sense to test the book with the strongest engine?

"That is a speed difference of 250X. Or with an EBF of 2, about 8 plies. The kibitzes are pure crap.
I don't believe the kibitzing info. Nor the depth info. In short, it sounds so much like the original Rybka fiasco I am not sure what to think."

The Rybka fiasco, where a giant group of highly competent elite programmers spent months and months to prove that there might be some similarities in the declaration of the uci parameters between rybka beta and fruit 2.1. Further evidence would have been so overwhelming that the group decided better not to show it.

Please either grow up or stay out of these discussions. The "original Rybka fiasco" was a clear reference to Rybka's displaying bogus node counts, bogus NPS values, bogus depth values. Anyone can see _exactly_ what I referred to since I used those explicit terms in my post, in a clear way. You are apparently just another "program xxx supporter" that wants to jump into waters where you don't belong.

Bob continues like this:
"One thing is for absolute certain, however. It is absolutely _not_ what it claims to be, in terms of the info it is kibitzing. I find it both amusing and disappointing that this kind of stuff continually comes up. And then people get upset when someone uses the "clone/illegal-copy" tag." As if they can't understand why such a claim would be made."

This is of course the very clever kind of saying that one is suspicous that leaves all the room in the world to say that it is not, never an accusation, look it up please.

What is to look up? I meant _exactly_ what I wrote. The person running the account them posted that he _was_ running Rybka while claiming to be TwistedLogic. So exactly _what_ is your complaint here? It should be with the person running one program while claiming to be another, on an account used by the author of the program to play in online events.

It was a mistake on my tester's part to use Rybka to tune our book using that account as it was misleading. I repeat that it was only running Rybka at that certain time, your words seem to imply that it is Rybka all the time.

It turns out that some guy played with rybka, indeed, on the very reliable testing environment ICC. A simple download of the public TL would have been possible, and probably a personal mail might have been more than enough to show that someone just made a mistake, but Bob has greater things in mind, listen:

"I have suspicions about _several_ current programs that are actively being tested and even participating in CCT-type events. My intent is to start naming names before the next event, to get some minimal level of honesty back into the process. Right now, it is at rock-bottom, IMHO.
While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified. What's to hide? Why hide it? <sigh>

Wow, there is a flood of programs who showed strange behaviour when playing Crafty on ICC, this is so hard an evidence you just have to start naming names, everything else would be a complete no-no for an honest programmer.

Again, read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote and meant. There _are_ several programs that are not what they claim. In CCT/ACCA events. In past WCCC events. And this was yet another case on ICC. Like it or not.

There is only a certain time when the account use Rybka, and that is to tune the opening book, and my tester admits to that. You're trying to generalize here that it is Rybka all the time, and that is just entirely false. How many times I'm going to repeat that idea so that you would understand. Maybe there's just no sense as you just don't want to understand. Are you trying to brainwash the people here into believing your half truths?

I'm wondering what are you really trying to achieve. You don't want Twisted Logic to join the next CCT? Are you still sore that 8 core Crafty running 20 million NPS loses against single core Twisted Logic running on an old Athlon X2 at 5% of Crafty's speed: http://www.cctchess.com/cct11/r7.htm

All I can say is that no matter how fast your program, may it search a billion nodes per second, if the idea behind the algorithm is not that good enough, it wouldn't be that good enough. It is not the speed that matters, it is the idea behind the algorithm.

Come on Bob. I'm thinking highly of you but it's starting to dwindle. Your ego seems inflated. No one can beat Crafty running on a very fast hardware. Come on. Even single core Rybka 3 will kick Crafty's arse even if it would run on some 16 core machine.

We could test that Rybka claim. But that's irrelevant here. Run Rybka at a _real_ 80K nps and I'll happily play it whenever you want. As far as "being sore" I'm not sore at all. Too old for that. But I do demand honesty. And I clearly was _not_ getting it in this circumstance, was I?

Where's dishonesty in there? Using Rybka to tune an opening book is a dishonesty? My operator is honest to admit that he did use Rybka to test the book, is that still dishonesty?

Let's get this over with. What really is your problem with TL? Are you pissed that the account used by TL in online tournaments run Rybka to test some opening book? My operator says that it was written in the notes at that time to indicate that it was running Rybka. My operator apologized for that. I admit it was a mistake on my operator's part as I myself is not in favor since it might give some misleading information.

I am even offended by the way you write so subtle some innuendos, insinuations , implications and such, but I would let it go just as a respect to one one of the founding members of this fora.

So what else there to discuss?

[Edsel Apostol]

There is absolutely nothing wrong nor misleading about Bob's comments on what he observed on ICC.
His comments and proofs have been confirmed by the operator of the Rybka in disguise.
Why can't some people understand such basic facts ?

To Edsel:
a) admit that it is wrong to tune TwistedLogic's book on ICC with a Rybka in disguise (operator already apologized).
b) no now existing chess engine genuinely searching at 80k nps is a match for current Crafty at 20 M nps.

Matthias.

It's not Rybka in disguise. Please straighten your facts first. It was clearly written in the notes that it was running Rybka to test/tune the opening book. It was not disguised.

a.) it is not wrong to tune TL's book or any other engine's book on ICC with Rybka. the problem here is that the account used by TL in one of the online tournaments is used to tune the book and it gives misleading information. My operator apologized for that mistake. I admit that it was a mistake on my operator's part.

b.) I am not sure if Rybka is genuinely searching at 80k NPS but if it is, it is more than a match for Crafty

[bob]

I give you another hint how intentionally misleading your honest statements were:

Directly after your morally important and necessary accusations Sam Hamilton asks:
"Is that on ICC?"

So? Where _else_ can you kibitz scores, depths, evaluations, variations, etc? So one has only to stop and think for more than 2 seconds to realize "This must be on ICC as that is the only place a computer program can kibitz anything."

Now that wasn't _really_ that misleading, was it? At least not to anyone that actually reads the comments and then _thinks_ about them...

Not even this elementary information was really in your posting ...
Sam understood that it was meant this way, as did i, of course, but again:
It is not what you wrote.

Then please interpret this:

For example, I watched Crafty lose 3 of 4 games to it last weekend. It was kibitzing (TwistedLogicCCT) and claimed to be searching 80K nodes per second. I'd be willing to play _any_ program really searching 80K, when the box I was using was searching 20M nodes per second. And I would not expect to lose 3 of every 4 games. Period. That is a speed difference of 250X. Or with an EBF of 2, about 8 plies. The kibitzes are pure crap.

Exactly what is "TwistedLogicCCT"? Ever give any thought to that? Exactly what does "kibitzing" mean? Only place that can happen is on a chess server. So "TwistedLogicCCT + kibitzing" seems to be clear to me. This _is_ a place where computer chess is the primary topic. There _is_ a basic assumption about vocabulary, context, etc here.

Another subtlety:
you write:
"For example, I ..."
This implies that there is more, not only this one. Another hint that it was meant as a general suspicion.
So obvious for a competent reader that one has to be blind to ignore it...

And your point would be? It _was_ a statement about computer chess in general. We have too many clones/copies. Too many examples of programs claiming to be A, but are actually B. I see absolutely _ZERO_ justification for playing Rybka on this account. The business about "testing a book" is nonsense. Why would I want to build a book for Crafty but develop it by letting Rybka use it on a server?

None of this rings completely true and honest. If it is completely honest, the people doing this are not exactly the brightest bulbs on the light fixture. Whether it is a case of poor judgement, poor thought processes, or whatever, I don't really care. It _was_ something that happened, and it was something that should _not_ have happened. Plain and simple logic.

[bob]

Try to be a bit more precise.
Bob has not accused TwistedLogic of being a clone.
He merely said TwistedLogic was displaying dishonest search infos on ICC.

Matthias.

Mr. Hyatt: "While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified."

I thought this was clear enough, but reading skills are a rare thing here.

Then you should work on yours. "TwistedLogicCCT" is the account used in the CCT events for TwistedLogic. It says it is twisted logic. It was running Rybka. Nothing I wrote was the least bit misleading.

Everything you wrote was complete nonsense, and totally misleading. I'll tell you what a naive reader like me had to think when reading your posting:

Again, absolutely _none_ of what I wrote was "complete nonsense". The only nonsense here is what you are writing, without any thought or consideration first. The old "put mind in gear before putting fingers in motion" would be good advice. Point by point below:

It started with this theme:
"Edsel Apostol wrote:
'There's a new Twisted Logic version here:
http://www.geocities.com/ed_apostol/index.htm
Just take a look at the readme file for more information.' "

Fine, a new version, always a pleasure for everyone.
Then the shock, all of a sudden:
Bob writes:
"I am not quite sure what to make of this program, but I can tell you one thing for certain. There is a certain level of dishonesty surrounding the thing."

Wow, I was shattered. Bob is certain, something is wrong with Twisted Logic. I had not expected this, but Bob would not write such a thing without hard evidence, of course.

He goes on:
"For example, I watched Crafty lose 3 of 4 games to it last weekend."

This seemed not too convincing to me, only 4 games, does not tell you a lot, so he must mean anything else.

" It was kibitzing (TwistedLogicCCT) and claimed to be searching 80K nodes per second. "

So it is about games on ICC, hardly a serious testing environment, one should think, so what is he after?

"Hardly a serious testing environment?" When the _author_ uses that account to play in online tournaments? When the notes for the program say it is using twisted logic? When this account is entered in events with the authors claim that this is not a copy of any other existing program?

It is not a copy of any other existing program.

Au Contrare mon dieu. It _was_ a copy of another existing program on the day I was observing it. How do you continually miss that point?

I don't miss the point. I just don't agree. I don't copy any program, the operator just run Rybka at that time to test the book. Is that copying for you? Is that your definition of copying?

"I'd be willing to play _any_ program really searching 80K, when the box I was using was searching 20M nodes per second. And I would not expect to lose 3 of every 4 games. Period."

Period always convinces me: People say it rarely and only when there is no room for further debate left. And I understand now, of course, TL must be Rybka, this is what Bob is after, isn't he?

And was I wrong? You seem to miss that _tiny_ detail. It _was_ Rybka. It was claiming to be twisted logic. You do the math.

It was only Rybka at that certain time when my tester is trying out his book. It was written in his notes. You're implying that it is Rybka all the time, it is not.

I _implied_ nothing. I stated that when I watched the games, looked at the kibitzing, I was absolutely convinced that the kibitzes were nonsense. I did not imply that it was Rybka or any other program. I said it was kibitzing bogus information just as Rybka does (bogus nps, depth, etc). It was then pointed out that it _was_ Rybka, if even for an hour or two. Just happened that I was watching during that "hour or two". So you don't get away with saying it is _always_ a unique program.

Why does your tester need to use a non-TL program to test his book? That makes _absolutely_ no sense either, but I'll leave that for another discussion.

What we are talking here is an _ICC Account_, not the _program_ itself. The program itself is a _unique_ program. When you say it is not always a unique program, it implies that at some point in time it is a clone. A program is a _different entity_ than the account, can't you get that simple and basic concept? Please make clear the things you say so that we will not have any misunderstanding here. Are you claiming that TL is a clone? If not say NO, if yes then say YES, that is just as simple as that.

Why shoudn't he use Rybka to test the book? It doesn't make sense to test the book with the strongest engine?

"That is a speed difference of 250X. Or with an EBF of 2, about 8 plies. The kibitzes are pure crap.
I don't believe the kibitzing info. Nor the depth info. In short, it sounds so much like the original Rybka fiasco I am not sure what to think."

The Rybka fiasco, where a giant group of highly competent elite programmers spent months and months to prove that there might be some similarities in the declaration of the uci parameters between rybka beta and fruit 2.1. Further evidence would have been so overwhelming that the group decided better not to show it.

Please either grow up or stay out of these discussions. The "original Rybka fiasco" was a clear reference to Rybka's displaying bogus node counts, bogus NPS values, bogus depth values. Anyone can see _exactly_ what I referred to since I used those explicit terms in my post, in a clear way. You are apparently just another "program xxx supporter" that wants to jump into waters where you don't belong.

Bob continues like this:
"One thing is for absolute certain, however. It is absolutely _not_ what it claims to be, in terms of the info it is kibitzing. I find it both amusing and disappointing that this kind of stuff continually comes up. And then people get upset when someone uses the "clone/illegal-copy" tag." As if they can't understand why such a claim would be made."

This is of course the very clever kind of saying that one is suspicous that leaves all the room in the world to say that it is not, never an accusation, look it up please.

What is to look up? I meant _exactly_ what I wrote. The person running the account them posted that he _was_ running Rybka while claiming to be TwistedLogic. So exactly _what_ is your complaint here? It should be with the person running one program while claiming to be another, on an account used by the author of the program to play in online events.

It was a mistake on my tester's part to use Rybka to tune our book using that account as it was misleading. I repeat that it was only running Rybka at that certain time, your words seem to imply that it is Rybka all the time.

It turns out that some guy played with rybka, indeed, on the very reliable testing environment ICC. A simple download of the public TL would have been possible, and probably a personal mail might have been more than enough to show that someone just made a mistake, but Bob has greater things in mind, listen:

"I have suspicions about _several_ current programs that are actively being tested and even participating in CCT-type events. My intent is to start naming names before the next event, to get some minimal level of honesty back into the process. Right now, it is at rock-bottom, IMHO.
While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified. What's to hide? Why hide it? <sigh>

Wow, there is a flood of programs who showed strange behaviour when playing Crafty on ICC, this is so hard an evidence you just have to start naming names, everything else would be a complete no-no for an honest programmer.

Again, read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote and meant. There _are_ several programs that are not what they claim. In CCT/ACCA events. In past WCCC events. And this was yet another case on ICC. Like it or not.

There is only a certain time when the account use Rybka, and that is to tune the opening book, and my tester admits to that. You're trying to generalize here that it is Rybka all the time, and that is just entirely false. How many times I'm going to repeat that idea so that you would understand. Maybe there's just no sense as you just don't want to understand. Are you trying to brainwash the people here into believing your half truths?

I'm wondering what are you really trying to achieve. You don't want Twisted Logic to join the next CCT? Are you still sore that 8 core Crafty running 20 million NPS loses against single core Twisted Logic running on an old Athlon X2 at 5% of Crafty's speed: http://www.cctchess.com/cct11/r7.htm

All I can say is that no matter how fast your program, may it search a billion nodes per second, if the idea behind the algorithm is not that good enough, it wouldn't be that good enough. It is not the speed that matters, it is the idea behind the algorithm.

Come on Bob. I'm thinking highly of you but it's starting to dwindle. Your ego seems inflated. No one can beat Crafty running on a very fast hardware. Come on. Even single core Rybka 3 will kick Crafty's arse even if it would run on some 16 core machine.

We could test that Rybka claim. But that's irrelevant here. Run Rybka at a _real_ 80K nps and I'll happily play it whenever you want. As far as "being sore" I'm not sore at all. Too old for that. But I do demand honesty. And I clearly was _not_ getting it in this circumstance, was I?

Where's dishonesty in there? Using Rybka to tune an opening book is a dishonesty? My operator is honest to admit that he did use Rybka to test the book, is that still dishonesty?

Let's get this over with. What really is your problem with TL? Are you pissed that the account used by TL in online tournaments run Rybka to test some opening book? My operator says that it was written in the notes at that time to indicate that it was running Rybka. My operator apologized for that. I admit it was a mistake on my operator's part as I myself is not in favor since it might give some misleading information.

I am even offended by the way you write so subtle some innuendos, insinuations , implications and such, but I would let it go just as a respect to one one of the founding members of this fora.

So what else there to discuss?

My problem with this is _exactly_ what I stated. ICC is quite specific in their policies about (C) accounts. This one is a key:

3) You keep this information in the finger notes:
- ICC username of the human owner/operator.
- Name and version number of the chess program used.
- What kind of machine it runs on.

As to whether you are offended or not, I really don't care. Just follow normal, polite, and rational practices, and this doesn't happen. But don't claim to be X, use program Y, and then get bent out of shape when I complain about it. If you behave reasonably, this doesn't happen. How often have you seen me complain about other programs? _VERY_ rarely, unless we are talking Crafty Clones, which is still an ongoing problem.

So if you want to be "bent out of shape" go for it. Follow the normal rules and practices used and this doesn't happen. I also don't like nonsensical explanations of bad behaviour either. The "testing a book using Rybka" doesn't pass the "smell-test" at all. I've been building testing books far longer than you guys, and I would not even consider using another program on ICC to evaluate opening book preparation. How will this relate to how _my_ program plays in those out-of-book positions? Makes no sense. Here's another reason this is a poor practice: We use ICC ratings for tournament seeding for ACC/CCT events also, and this is just another practice that distorts things.

[bob]

There is absolutely nothing wrong nor misleading about Bob's comments on what he observed on ICC.
His comments and proofs have been confirmed by the operator of the Rybka in disguise.
Why can't some people understand such basic facts ?

To Edsel:
a) admit that it is wrong to tune TwistedLogic's book on ICC with a Rybka in disguise (operator already apologized).
b) no now existing chess engine genuinely searching at 80k nps is a match for current Crafty at 20 M nps.

Matthias.

It's not Rybka in disguise. Please straighten your facts first. It was clearly written in the notes that it was running Rybka to test/tune the opening book. It was not disguised.

Sorry, but this is _complete_ bullshit. I have already mentioned that the finger notes on the day in question looked like this:

1: TwistedLogic beta by Edsel Apostol, Philippines
2: AMD Athlon 64X2 3800+ 2010 MHz, using 1 CPU with 256MB hash
3: Mostly unattended. Email me at ed_apostol@yahoo.com for question/comments.
4: Beta Tester, Opening Book, Operator: Audy Arandela
5: Current and Best beta version for now: t2009923_x64
6: Rybka's, please limit your RATED games. I would like to preferrably play
amateur chess engines or humans of course!
7: http://ed.apostol.googlepages.com/home
8: Using self-made Twistedbook! TwistedLogic able to use ownbook now!
9: Humans that have defeated me: Revisor(GM), RoadKing(GM)

"No rybkas" indeed. No point in playing Rybka vs Rybka, right?

That did _not_ say, on the day in question, "testing new book using Rybka". So you can get off of that horse before you use the spurs, it isn't going anywhere.

a.) it is not wrong to tune TL's book or any other engine's book on ICC with Rybka. the problem here is that the account used by TL in one of the online tournaments is used to tune the book and it gives misleading information. My operator apologized for that mistake. I admit that it was a mistake on my operator's part.

b.) I am not sure if Rybka is genuinely searching at 80k NPS but if it is, it is more than a match for Crafty

(1) Rybka is not searching at 80K nodes per second. Already proven, old news, some even patched the program to remove the code that obfuscates this data. Whether it is more than a match for crafty or not is not the issue. You might want to _make_ that the issue, but it is not. The issue is claiming to be A, while actually using B, and then complaining and whining about getting exposed.

[Edsel Apostol]

I give you another hint how intentionally misleading your honest statements were:

Directly after your morally important and necessary accusations Sam Hamilton asks:
"Is that on ICC?"

So? Where _else_ can you kibitz scores, depths, evaluations, variations, etc? So one has only to stop and think for more than 2 seconds to realize "This must be on ICC as that is the only place a computer program can kibitz anything."

Now that wasn't _really_ that misleading, was it? At least not to anyone that actually reads the comments and then _thinks_ about them...

Not even this elementary information was really in your posting ...
Sam understood that it was meant this way, as did i, of course, but again:
It is not what you wrote.

Then please interpret this:

For example, I watched Crafty lose 3 of 4 games to it last weekend. It was kibitzing (TwistedLogicCCT) and claimed to be searching 80K nodes per second. I'd be willing to play _any_ program really searching 80K, when the box I was using was searching 20M nodes per second. And I would not expect to lose 3 of every 4 games. Period. That is a speed difference of 250X. Or with an EBF of 2, about 8 plies. The kibitzes are pure crap.

Exactly what is "TwistedLogicCCT"? Ever give any thought to that? Exactly what does "kibitzing" mean? Only place that can happen is on a chess server. So "TwistedLogicCCT + kibitzing" seems to be clear to me. This _is_ a place where computer chess is the primary topic. There _is_ a basic assumption about vocabulary, context, etc here.

Another subtlety:
you write:
"For example, I ..."
This implies that there is more, not only this one. Another hint that it was meant as a general suspicion.
So obvious for a competent reader that one has to be blind to ignore it...

And your point would be? It _was_ a statement about computer chess in general. We have too many clones/copies. Too many examples of programs claiming to be A, but are actually B. I see absolutely _ZERO_ justification for playing Rybka on this account. The business about "testing a book" is nonsense. Why would I want to build a book for Crafty but develop it by letting Rybka use it on a server?

Different strokes for different folks. It doesn't mean that what works for Crafty is applicable also to other engines. Crafty is not the _absolute_ authority on engines to follow. Rybka is the strongest engine and therefore it is only logical to test the opening book with Rybka as most opponents are Rybka and when using a weaker engine any good lines in the book would still lose no matter what. It's what works with our book. If it doesn't make sense with Crafty, it doesn't mean it would not make sense with other engines too.

None of this rings completely true and honest. If it is completely honest, the people doing this are not exactly the brightest bulbs on the light fixture. Whether it is a case of poor judgement, poor thought processes, or whatever, I don't really care. It _was_ something that happened, and it was something that should _not_ have happened. Plain and simple logic.

Okay we take it that we are not that smart. Maybe after 30 years of Computer Chess experience we would be smarter enough to have the strongest engine out there.

[Edsel Apostol]

Try to be a bit more precise.
Bob has not accused TwistedLogic of being a clone.
He merely said TwistedLogic was displaying dishonest search infos on ICC.

Matthias.

Mr. Hyatt: "While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified."

I thought this was clear enough, but reading skills are a rare thing here.

Then you should work on yours. "TwistedLogicCCT" is the account used in the CCT events for TwistedLogic. It says it is twisted logic. It was running Rybka. Nothing I wrote was the least bit misleading.

Everything you wrote was complete nonsense, and totally misleading. I'll tell you what a naive reader like me had to think when reading your posting:

Again, absolutely _none_ of what I wrote was "complete nonsense". The only nonsense here is what you are writing, without any thought or consideration first. The old "put mind in gear before putting fingers in motion" would be good advice. Point by point below:

It started with this theme:
"Edsel Apostol wrote:
'There's a new Twisted Logic version here:
http://www.geocities.com/ed_apostol/index.htm
Just take a look at the readme file for more information.' "

Fine, a new version, always a pleasure for everyone.
Then the shock, all of a sudden:
Bob writes:
"I am not quite sure what to make of this program, but I can tell you one thing for certain. There is a certain level of dishonesty surrounding the thing."

Wow, I was shattered. Bob is certain, something is wrong with Twisted Logic. I had not expected this, but Bob would not write such a thing without hard evidence, of course.

He goes on:
"For example, I watched Crafty lose 3 of 4 games to it last weekend."

This seemed not too convincing to me, only 4 games, does not tell you a lot, so he must mean anything else.

" It was kibitzing (TwistedLogicCCT) and claimed to be searching 80K nodes per second. "

So it is about games on ICC, hardly a serious testing environment, one should think, so what is he after?

"Hardly a serious testing environment?" When the _author_ uses that account to play in online tournaments? When the notes for the program say it is using twisted logic? When this account is entered in events with the authors claim that this is not a copy of any other existing program?

It is not a copy of any other existing program.

Au Contrare mon dieu. It _was_ a copy of another existing program on the day I was observing it. How do you continually miss that point?

I don't miss the point. I just don't agree. I don't copy any program, the operator just run Rybka at that time to test the book. Is that copying for you? Is that your definition of copying?

"I'd be willing to play _any_ program really searching 80K, when the box I was using was searching 20M nodes per second. And I would not expect to lose 3 of every 4 games. Period."

Period always convinces me: People say it rarely and only when there is no room for further debate left. And I understand now, of course, TL must be Rybka, this is what Bob is after, isn't he?

And was I wrong? You seem to miss that _tiny_ detail. It _was_ Rybka. It was claiming to be twisted logic. You do the math.

It was only Rybka at that certain time when my tester is trying out his book. It was written in his notes. You're implying that it is Rybka all the time, it is not.

I _implied_ nothing. I stated that when I watched the games, looked at the kibitzing, I was absolutely convinced that the kibitzes were nonsense. I did not imply that it was Rybka or any other program. I said it was kibitzing bogus information just as Rybka does (bogus nps, depth, etc). It was then pointed out that it _was_ Rybka, if even for an hour or two. Just happened that I was watching during that "hour or two". So you don't get away with saying it is _always_ a unique program.

Why does your tester need to use a non-TL program to test his book? That makes _absolutely_ no sense either, but I'll leave that for another discussion.

What we are talking here is an _ICC Account_, not the _program_ itself. The program itself is a _unique_ program. When you say it is not always a unique program, it implies that at some point in time it is a clone. A program is a _different entity_ than the account, can't you get that simple and basic concept? Please make clear the things you say so that we will not have any misunderstanding here. Are you claiming that TL is a clone? If not say NO, if yes then say YES, that is just as simple as that.

Why shoudn't he use Rybka to test the book? It doesn't make sense to test the book with the strongest engine?

"That is a speed difference of 250X. Or with an EBF of 2, about 8 plies. The kibitzes are pure crap.
I don't believe the kibitzing info. Nor the depth info. In short, it sounds so much like the original Rybka fiasco I am not sure what to think."

The Rybka fiasco, where a giant group of highly competent elite programmers spent months and months to prove that there might be some similarities in the declaration of the uci parameters between rybka beta and fruit 2.1. Further evidence would have been so overwhelming that the group decided better not to show it.

Please either grow up or stay out of these discussions. The "original Rybka fiasco" was a clear reference to Rybka's displaying bogus node counts, bogus NPS values, bogus depth values. Anyone can see _exactly_ what I referred to since I used those explicit terms in my post, in a clear way. You are apparently just another "program xxx supporter" that wants to jump into waters where you don't belong.

Bob continues like this:
"One thing is for absolute certain, however. It is absolutely _not_ what it claims to be, in terms of the info it is kibitzing. I find it both amusing and disappointing that this kind of stuff continually comes up. And then people get upset when someone uses the "clone/illegal-copy" tag." As if they can't understand why such a claim would be made."

This is of course the very clever kind of saying that one is suspicous that leaves all the room in the world to say that it is not, never an accusation, look it up please.

What is to look up? I meant _exactly_ what I wrote. The person running the account them posted that he _was_ running Rybka while claiming to be TwistedLogic. So exactly _what_ is your complaint here? It should be with the person running one program while claiming to be another, on an account used by the author of the program to play in online events.

It was a mistake on my tester's part to use Rybka to tune our book using that account as it was misleading. I repeat that it was only running Rybka at that certain time, your words seem to imply that it is Rybka all the time.

It turns out that some guy played with rybka, indeed, on the very reliable testing environment ICC. A simple download of the public TL would have been possible, and probably a personal mail might have been more than enough to show that someone just made a mistake, but Bob has greater things in mind, listen:

"I have suspicions about _several_ current programs that are actively being tested and even participating in CCT-type events. My intent is to start naming names before the next event, to get some minimal level of honesty back into the process. Right now, it is at rock-bottom, IMHO.
While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified. What's to hide? Why hide it? <sigh>

Wow, there is a flood of programs who showed strange behaviour when playing Crafty on ICC, this is so hard an evidence you just have to start naming names, everything else would be a complete no-no for an honest programmer.

Again, read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote and meant. There _are_ several programs that are not what they claim. In CCT/ACCA events. In past WCCC events. And this was yet another case on ICC. Like it or not.

There is only a certain time when the account use Rybka, and that is to tune the opening book, and my tester admits to that. You're trying to generalize here that it is Rybka all the time, and that is just entirely false. How many times I'm going to repeat that idea so that you would understand. Maybe there's just no sense as you just don't want to understand. Are you trying to brainwash the people here into believing your half truths?

I'm wondering what are you really trying to achieve. You don't want Twisted Logic to join the next CCT? Are you still sore that 8 core Crafty running 20 million NPS loses against single core Twisted Logic running on an old Athlon X2 at 5% of Crafty's speed: http://www.cctchess.com/cct11/r7.htm

All I can say is that no matter how fast your program, may it search a billion nodes per second, if the idea behind the algorithm is not that good enough, it wouldn't be that good enough. It is not the speed that matters, it is the idea behind the algorithm.

Come on Bob. I'm thinking highly of you but it's starting to dwindle. Your ego seems inflated. No one can beat Crafty running on a very fast hardware. Come on. Even single core Rybka 3 will kick Crafty's arse even if it would run on some 16 core machine.

We could test that Rybka claim. But that's irrelevant here. Run Rybka at a _real_ 80K nps and I'll happily play it whenever you want. As far as "being sore" I'm not sore at all. Too old for that. But I do demand honesty. And I clearly was _not_ getting it in this circumstance, was I?

Where's dishonesty in there? Using Rybka to tune an opening book is a dishonesty? My operator is honest to admit that he did use Rybka to test the book, is that still dishonesty?

Let's get this over with. What really is your problem with TL? Are you pissed that the account used by TL in online tournaments run Rybka to test some opening book? My operator says that it was written in the notes at that time to indicate that it was running Rybka. My operator apologized for that. I admit it was a mistake on my operator's part as I myself is not in favor since it might give some misleading information.

I am even offended by the way you write so subtle some innuendos, insinuations , implications and such, but I would let it go just as a respect to one one of the founding members of this fora.

So what else there to discuss?

My problem with this is _exactly_ what I stated. ICC is quite specific in their policies about (C) accounts. This one is a key:

3) You keep this information in the finger notes:
- ICC username of the human owner/operator.
- Name and version number of the chess program used.
- What kind of machine it runs on.

As to whether you are offended or not, I really don't care. Just follow normal, polite, and rational practices, and this doesn't happen. But don't claim to be X, use program Y, and then get bent out of shape when I complain about it. If you behave reasonably, this doesn't happen. How often have you seen me complain about other programs? _VERY_ rarely, unless we are talking Crafty Clones, which is still an ongoing problem.

I think I have not done anything wrong, as fas as I know. My tester/operator admits that he had committed an act of poor judgement. I'm just trying to defend some subtle accusations.

So if you want to be "bent out of shape" go for it. Follow the normal rules and practices used and this doesn't happen. I also don't like nonsensical explanations of bad behaviour either. The "testing a book using Rybka" doesn't pass the "smell-test" at all. I've been building testing books far longer than you guys, and I would not even consider using another program on ICC to evaluate opening book preparation. How will this relate to how _my_ program plays in those out-of-book positions? Makes no sense.

As what I've said it doesn't mean that what doesn't work for Crafty will not work with other engines.

Here's another reason this is a poor practice: We use ICC ratings for tournament seeding for ACC/CCT events also, and this is just another practice that distorts things.

I get the point of this one that's why I myself is sad that this happens. My operator didn't intend any harm or what. He just want to have the best book for our engine, that's all. He apologized for that mistake.