We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

[hgm]

Its not bully, its abandoning. I won't provide a version to testers who don't meet some standard I define for myself. Obviously no individual has the power to compel a group to do something. The point of the post was that as a collective, we do have that power. And if we reach a consensus that stolen engines should not be rated, then that can be reflected in the rating lists.

That sounds a bit realistic. If you release your engine, be it in binary or as source, how are you going to prevent it to avoid the testers will download it, enter it in their tourneys, and someone uses the tourney results to generate a rating list based on those? Obviously you could not prevent that with any of the popular licenses. So under what kind of license would you release it? Would it contain a clause like "it is forbidden to play this engine against other computers"?

You see this as some war against an individual entity, or set of them; but really its a very basic statement: Don't support people or groups that do not support you.

I am mainly skeptical towards the notion that rating groups would need your 'support' in anyway. Their 'customer base' is engine users who want to know how strong a certain engine is. Most of those will not be engine authors.

[AndrewGrant]

Its not bully, its abandoning. I won't provide a version to testers who don't meet some standard I define for myself. Obviously no individual has the power to compel a group to do something. The point of the post was that as a collective, we do have that power. And if we reach a consensus that stolen engines should not be rated, then that can be reflected in the rating lists.

That sounds a bit realistic. If you release your engine, be it in binary or as source, how are you going to prevent it to avoid the testers will download it, enter it in their tourneys, and someone uses the tourney results to generate a rating list based on those? Obviously you could not prevent that with any of the popular licenses. So under what kind of license would you release it? Would it contain a clause like "it is forbidden to play this engine against other computers"?

Well the answer to that is if its a commercial engine, the list would have to buy a copy if they care to test it. I imagine all authors have happily given copies to all the testers on release in the past; I would break that tradition.

[Cornfed]

Its time that people stand up and become the change that this community so badly needs, and that so many of us would like to see. That means not using ChessBase products.

I stopped using ChessBase software years ago when it became apparent they'd never fix the flicker problem that afflicts their GUIs.

Maybe I'm the only one who has been fortunate to never have this problem in some...I don't know how many years I've been using their products..maybe since Chessbase 6 (?) was released.

[pohl4711]

Well the answer to that is if its a commercial engine, the list would have to buy a copy if they care to test it. I imagine all authors have happily given copies to all the testers on release in the past; I would break that tradition.

Totally wrong Imagination. I always paid for the commercial engines in my ratinglist. Only exception was Fat Fritz 2, I got a free testversion from Albert Silver. But otherwise, I would have bought it, because I think the concept of the Fat Fritz 2 net is interesting.
I bought Houdini from version 2 on. And I am a Komodo Subscriber since years. I bought Fritz 16, Fritz 17 and Fat Fritz 1.
Because, I am deciding, what I am interested in and what I am testing. And nobody can and will tell me, what I am allowed to test. Thats why I am paying for engines: The only way to stay really free and independent as a tester is the willingness to pay for commercial engines. I am tester and not a judge. If anybody doesnt like my testwork - no problem. Just do not visit my website. But nobody will tell me, what I am allowed to test. For a tester, independence and transparency are the most important virtues. Not pretending being a judge, like so many others here on talkchess and in the computerchess community do.

If anyone believes, a software is illegal: go to court and win. Case closed. Everything else is trashtalk (best case) or a witch hunt (worst case). And thats not my business. Ending this is the change, the community badly needs. My 2 cents.

[towforce]

Totally wrong Imagination. I always paid for the commercial engines in my ratinglist. Only exception was Fat Fritz 2, I got a free testversion from Albert Silver. But otherwise, I would have bought it, because I think the concept of the Fat Fritz 2 net is interesting.
I bought Houdini from version 2 on. And I am a Komodo Subscriber since years. I bought Fritz 16, Fritz 17 and Fat Fritz 1.
Because, I am deciding, what I am interested in and what I am testing. And nobody can and will tell me, what I am allowed to test. Thats why I am paying for engines: The only way to stay really free and independent as a tester is the willingness to pay for commercial engines. I am tester and not a judge. If anybody doesnt like my testwork - no problem. Just do not visit my website. But nobody will tell me, what I am allowed to test. For a tester, independence and transparency are the most important virtues. Not pretending being a judge, like so many others here on talkchess and in the computerchess community do.

If anyone believes, a software is illegal: go to court and win. Case closed. Everything else is trashtalk (best case) or a witch hunt (worst case). And thats not my business. Ending this is the change, the community badly needs. My 2 cents.

Spirited and classy. The test community fights back!

[Leo]

The only problem: Chessbase has the best products (Fritz is just a GUI...despite their current use of SF stuff). So, no...

Agreed. Fritz GUI is definitely the best out there, and I also think Playchess is the best for online play IMO. And if Fat Fritz 2 was so good that it would surpass the regular stockfish I would use it as well..copy or not, but the fact is that it is not.
Why reject something entirely? everyone just use whatever they like the most..
If you hate chessbase so much don't use their products..

I am sure he is not going to use them based on his statements.

[noobpwnftw]

If anyone believes, a software is illegal: go to court and win. Case closed. Everything else is trashtalk (best case) or a witch hunt (worst case). And thats not my business. Ending this is the change, the community badly needs. My 2 cents.

Do you consider yourself legally liable for all the entities in the results you tested on your site?

To put this in realistic ways, in Houdini's case, before anyone going to court, should the authors of SF file a take-down request to you too?
If so, then should they include you as the offender if such a legal case against Houdart's copyright infringement to be filed? If not, in what relationship or legal grounds should you comply with any of the court rulings against Houdart alone?

I think you on the one hand consider yourself independent to what you test, on the other hand trying to completely avoid any moral or ethical responsibilities by saying all should go to court, yet, should such a court case be decided, it is still up to your personal feelings what to do.

So unless you are willing take legal liabilities for all the entities in the results you tested on your site, everything is trash talk or witch hunt, in your words, including any court rulings.

It all comes down to moral or ethical standards and the "community" works to agree upon one, now, are distancing yourself from the so-called "community"?

[the_real_greco]

As much as people don't like Houdini, Fire, FF, etc, they need to be rated somehow. Having been able to point to the CCRL and Pohl's and be like, "Look at what the independent testers show!" has been extremely valuable.

Is there anybody whose opinion matters, that will look at the ratings list and not know which engines are the real ones?

Sure, clones shouldn't be showcased in tournaments. But a gigantic list of ratings is an entirely different thing.

[Guenther]

Totally wrong Imagination. I always paid for the commercial engines in my ratinglist. Only exception was Fat Fritz 2, I got a free testversion from Albert Silver. But otherwise, I would have bought it, because I think the concept of the Fat Fritz 2 net is interesting.
I bought Houdini from version 2 on. And I am a Komodo Subscriber since years. I bought Fritz 16, Fritz 17 and Fat Fritz 1.
Because, I am deciding, what I am interested in and what I am testing. And nobody can and will tell me, what I am allowed to test. Thats why I am paying for engines: The only way to stay really free and independent as a tester is the willingness to pay for commercial engines. I am tester and not a judge. If anybody doesnt like my testwork - no problem. Just do not visit my website. But nobody will tell me, what I am allowed to test. For a tester, independence and transparency are the most important virtues. Not pretending being a judge, like so many others here on talkchess and in the computerchess community do.

If anyone believes, a software is illegal: go to court and win. Case closed. Everything else is trashtalk (best case) or a witch hunt (worst case). And thats not my business. Ending this is the change, the community badly needs. My 2 cents.

Spirited and classy. The test community fights back! :twisted:

No. FatFritz2 testers obviously are a different brand and need to defend FatFritz2 by all means - not surprising.
(and they are always non-programmers too, a coincidence?)

Does anyone understand what witch hunting has to do with the facts about FF2?
(and the lies in the beginning and the marketing scam, which goes down to pieces now slowly)
Probably he still believes in a witchhunt vs. Houdini too?

The sentence 'I am a tester not a judge' leaves some bitter aftertaste, it is quite analogue to a lot of horrible wrongdoings in mankind.

[noobpwnftw]

I don't see how it is a beneficial thing to do to make a gigantic list of entries that are irrelevant.

So here is the thing:

If you test every random SF clone that people may release, how is that different from just testing every SFdev commit like NCM? Do you do that to your "general" rating lists? I don't think so.

Now, I also have a plenty of experiments of different NNUE arch, size and they vary in performance, in fact, I probably explored more architecture variants before some other guy re-invented them, do you consider that I would be offering an "edge" to the independent testers if I just go by nicknaming all my "failed" nets and let people play around them all? I don't think so either.

So I'm quite mystified on what the standards being for them in technical terms other than having a skill set involving anus licking.