mjlef wrote: I greatlly respect the Stockfish team and how hard they have worked. But Marco, "pathetic" and "desperate"? We have been updating the links as the rating lists change to try to keep them current. No lies, no deception. As I recall, even after Stockfish lost the TCEC last year, the stockfish.org site still claimed "The strongest chess engine in the world." I wonder why you did not change that after that loss? As for who is best, you will just have to wait for the Komodo 9 release to find out.
Mark, you are of course free to do what you want with your site: it is yours!
You are also free to do what you want with your marketing policy: it is your product and your job.
I feel a bit embarassed you have to explain what you did becuase you don't need it at all, defenitly not for me.
As you are free to do what you want, I also feel free to write that switching the link from CEGT 20 to CEGT 120 the day that Komodo dropped from CEGT 20 top was a bit surprising for me. It is surprising becuause for the very little that I know you, I made up my mind you are not the one that indulge in these little escamotages.
mcostalba wrote:the stockfish.org site still claimed "The strongest chess engine in the world."
I don't remember was ever written like this. I remember was written "among the strongest", I am not the webmaster and I seldom look at the site, but I fully trust that Daylen is very fair and correct.
Ferdy wrote: Read below so you may know your elders and the organization that are responsible for our hobby.
They are responsible for nothing,
That's not quite true. For progress one needs competition, that's exactly what they did, long before the internet came around.
_we_ are responsible of our hobby.
Sure, nowadays. ICGA missed the (internet) boat.
You cannot live in a (distant) past, you have to live the present and aim toward the future.
Calling the winner of this tournament "world champion" has been a blatant and conscious lie for any and all of the last years. Not accepting this fact stops any possibility of furthering discussion, because it is like to state that earth is flat and does not spin. Who asserts this (few days ago there was some cleric from saudi that stated this on youtube!) cannot be discussed with: if I go to discuss with the cleric that earth is not flat I would be punished, whipped and put in jail...and of course he will continue to state that earth is flat.
mjlef wrote:As for who is best, you will just have to wait for the Komodo 9 release to find out.
First, I respect all the work you have done on Komodo.
The best is determined by what is out now. One could say wait until Stockfish 7, Houdini 5 or Gull 4 is released...THEN we'll know who the real champ is.
We can only deal with what is presently available now to determine which is the best now. Everything else is pure conjecture.
At least for me, the conference seems more interesting than the chess tournament (even if it was completely and totally legitimate). I'd like to attend it at least once - not necessarily this year - as it seems like a really interesting event. However, I've never been to a conference so I don't know anything about them, which leads to the question: are there any restrictions on participation, i.e. do you have to be in academia to be able to attend the conference (not submit papers, just be there to learn)? It would be pretty weird if that was the case as most people developing chess programs are at least no longer in academia, and these people would be excluded for no reason.
Functional programming combines the flexibility and power of abstract mathematics with the intuitive clarity of abstract mathematics. https://github.com/mAarnos
Bloodbane wrote:At least for me, the conference seems more interesting than the chess tournament (even if it was completely and totally legitimate). I'd like to attend it at least once - not necessarily this year - as it seems like a really interesting event. However, I've never been to a conference so I don't know anything about them, which leads to the question: are there any restrictions on participation, i.e. do you have to be in academia to be able to attend the conference (not submit papers, just be there to learn)? It would be pretty weird if that was the case as most people developing chess programs are at least no longer in academia, and these people would be excluded for no reason.
APassionForCriminalJustic wrote:
Show some respect for the current champion; it is not Stockfish.
I have full respect for Larry, Mark and (Don Dailey RIP) for the incredible work that they have done with Komodo.
Statistically even TCEC has little value due to the size of the error bars on that number of games.
However, it is the best we currently have (due to time restrictions).
"Current" is hard to define in this ever changing environment of daily, weekly and monthly version updates that is now part of the computer chess engine world. In this environment a 2-3 month old rating list or tournament result can become outdated very quickly. If current means as of today, than even the last TCEC is ancient history now.
I like your point here PaulieD about the obvious difficulty defining what current means, at least when it comes to determining who is the best between Stockfish and Komodo. We all know that this is exactly why Houdart decided to walk away; he knew that one release per year would simply not do it.
In my humble opinion, I think that the TCEC grand-champion title should stay relevant before the next season despite the rapid growth of a lot of awesome engines.
The Komodo 9 release is certainly something to look forward to now to see where things effectively stand.
