Corrupt CCRL, CEGT, and IPON

[kranium]

Facts:

Vas R., (author of Rybka) stated publicly that Ippolit was a clone of Rybka3 (clearly in his interest)
but never offered any tiny bit of proof?
(and he has since been shown to be a lair)

but major testing groups: CCRL, CEGT, etc. immediately (and unfairly) blacklisted Ippolit...and subsequently all following versions: RobboLito, Iggorit, IvanHoe?
no version of Ippolit have been tested to date, even though they are proving to be clean, original, and innovative?

Vas R., (Rybka author) had established a very close relationship with these same groups years previously when he fooled them that his own program was original and innovative...
and, for years the CCRL and CEGT enjoyed the benefits and prestige of receiving free copies of the many commercial Rybka versions (which over the years became worth many hundreds/thousands of dollars).

consequently, this corrupt, immoral, and self serving blacklisting of Ippolit engines obtained Vas R.'s desired effect:
Rybka was left alone at #1 for many years, dramatically increasing profits...

(there's no question that the completely unopposed #1 status, shown on testing lists for years, exerted very strong influence on all buyers, especially new hobbyists decisions...)
Vas R. and all associated commercial concerns benefited enormously...

the sad fact is: Rybka3 remained (for years) completely unopposed by any 'free' equally strong alternative',
despite the existence (the whole time) of stronger or equally strong Ippolit versions!

Rybka was 'protected' at the very top of the extremely influential CCRL and CEGT lists for years...while testers were receiving free copies.

it's time to stop the corruption and undue abuse of power...
it's time to demand unbiased and all-inclusive testing...
if the CCRL and CEGT can't do it, then please, let's close them down:

please send a message: a compete boycott of these corrupt and unduly influenced lists.

[Albert Silver]

I'm guessing you found a lump of coal?

[zullil]

I'm guessing you found a lump of coal?

[Roger Brown]

Facts:

Vas R., (author of Rybka) stated publicly that Ippolit was a clone of Rybka3 (clearly in his interest)
but never offered any tiny bit of proof?
(and he has since been shown to be a lair)

but major testing groups: CCRL, CEGT, etc. immediately (and unfairly) blacklisted Ippolit...and subsequently all following versions: RobboLito, Iggorit, IvanHoe?
no version of Ippolit have been tested to date, even though they are proving to be clean, original, and innovative?

Vas R., (Rybka author) had established a very close relationship with these same groups years previously when he fooled them that his own program was original and innovative...
and, for years the CCRL and CEGT enjoyed the benefits and prestige of receiving free copies of the many commercial Rybka versions (which over the years became worth many hundreds/thousands of dollars).

consequently, this corrupt, immoral, and self serving blacklisting of Ippolit engines obtained Vas R.'s desired effect:
Rybka was left alone at #1 for many years, dramatically increasing profits...

(there's no question that the completely unopposed #1 status, shown on testing lists for years, exerted very strong influence on all buyers, especially new hobbyists decisions...)
Vas R. and all associated commercial concerns benefited enormously...

the sad fact is: Rybka3 remained (for years) completely unopposed by any 'free' equally strong alternative',
despite the existence (the whole time) of stronger or equally strong Ippolit versions!

Rybka was 'protected' at the very top of the extremely influential CCRL and CEGT lists for years...while testers were receiving free copies.

it's time to stop the corruption and undue abuse of power...
it's time to demand unbiased and all-inclusive testing...
if the CCRL and CEGT can't do it, then please, let's close them down:

please send a message: a compete boycott of these corrupt and unduly influenced lists.

Hello Norman,

(1) Rating lists are as credible as the persons who use them as reference points believe them to be. The market for chess engine information is smart enough to understand that if there is an engine which is stronger than anything that lives which is not being tested that the list is perhaps not as relevant as it could be.

(2) These groups are comprised of volunteers. There cannot be a demand to test engine A or B.

(3) Negative user reactions, including boycotts I suppose, will arise as the matters addressed in (1) become better known. There is no possibility of abuse or of shutting them down. I understand that you are perhaps speaking using hyperbole but these are not groups which can be shut down by user action.

(4) From a strictly statistical perspective, if the engines you mention have a common heritage, wouldn't it be best to test the best version of that family rather than all branches of it? I am also thinking of the time and resources it would take testers to test Ippolit, RobboLito, Iggorit, IvanHoe, Fire etc. What is your take on that view? Which engine would you suggest in that case?

Just some thoughts....

Later.

[Terry McCracken]

I'm guessing you found a lump of coal?

That and he's been hitting the eggnog pretty hard.

[CRoberson]

Fact:

The only proof I ever saw of Ippo being original was a paper that lacks a signature. So, I am to believe a paper by an anonymous author to be proof that a program by anonymous authors is authentic. Wow, what a lump of coal that is.


Happy Holidays to all.

[h1a8]

It's not practical to test all these engines. But if there is one who is the strongest among them then I think it is fair to test it. After all, Rybka Strelka, etc. were tested. To most, it doesn't matter if an engine is controversial but rather where does it stand in comparison to the other engines. After all, many people have or had at least one of these engines anyway.

I vote to test one and one only Ippolit family engine. Maybe the strongest Ivanhoe or something. That's just me though.

[Adam Hair]

It's not practical to test all these engines. But if there is one who is the strongest among them then I think it is fair to test it. After all, Rybka Strelka, etc. were tested. To most, it doesn't matter if an engine is controversial but rather where does it stand in comparison to the other engines. After all, many people have or had at least one of these engines anyway.

I vote to test one and one only Ippolit family engine. Maybe the strongest Ivanhoe or something. That's just me though.

I am not trying to start a war of words with Robert. However, Norman Schmidt and Franklin Titus have presented evidence of shared code between Robbolito and Houdini 1.00. Kai Laskos and myself have presented information concerning the similarity of move selections between Robbolito/IvanHoe and Houdini. And then there are these words from Richard Vida:

About Houdini: I was curious too what makes Houdini so much stronger than rest of IPPO family. Disassembling an entirely unknown program is a _very_ hard task, but fortunately we have 90% of its sources and with them the task is much much easier.

I would feel very uncomfortable revealing in public what I have learned from H1.5, but take my word - almost all of the improvements are very IPPO specific and are not applicable to neither SF, Critter nor Komodo.
And some of them we already use and are not that original... e.g. rewarding safe queen contact checks in king safety evaluation (iirc I saw this already in glaurung 2.1?)

Richard

All of this makes me believe that we already are testing the strongest branch of the Ippolit family.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hello,

I lost total my interest on official computer chess activities with all this double moral and ignorance.

If the program Fritz by Frans Morsch is cloned and the clone is stronger as the original I am sure that no rating list will test newer Fritz versions again and again, or ... no, no!

Its not right to test Houdini and ignorance Robbolito or IvanHoe or Fire. IvanHoe and Fire plays different chess.

A chess program plays different chess if the value pieces are changed, can be very easy see with the latest Ivanhoe SWCR test.

Again ...
Its not right to test Houdini and to ignore the others. Norman have right because for this actual situation no plausible excuse is available.

Computer chess is death with all this supporter of bad things.

The bad second open letter by a group of programmers with have only own things in the brain. By programmers with no thinking about around 15 others consequences (list can be found in the thread to this topic).

This was a very bad year!
We can say that most important for so many people are the own double moral.

The result of free software, free sources and other free things and a virtual not to controlled hobby. Give a poor man a million ... the results will be the same.

I am very disappointed about it. Norman wrote about one bad point only!

But its Christmas time and we should not start such a thread to Christmas. On the other hand ... so many people should thinking to Christmas time about the own double moral in detail.

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Code: Select all

But its Christmas time and we should not start such a thread to Christmas. On the other hand ... so many people should thinking to Christmas time about the own double moral in detail.

Could be interesting for the own life.
For education of our children and so many others important points in the own life.

But this isn't my problem.

Norman, people ...
Look in our chronicle, all this wars for nothing!
No changes all this time if we compare it with the acutal time we life in it.

People are thinking they life in a cultivate World but this is the biggest lie in our life. The most know that and resort, for an example to an own double moral with adulate reasons for doing this one or that one.

Internet is very danger for people with can't obviated with it. Most reasons for so many people to used intuitive anonymous accounts.

Best
Frank