Twisted Logic new version!

[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.

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.

We are not whining and complaining here. I am just trying to defend against some accusations. Don't I have the right to defend myself against accusations here? Is this forum under dictatorship? Would I just keep being silent even when I'm being accused of stuff that are just entirely false?

My operator/tester committed a mistake and apologized for that. What are you trying to achieve by making the issue bigger? You want to discredit me as dishonest? You don't want TL to join the next CCT because of those accusations? You're thinking that we use Rybka in tournaments? My goal is to beat Rybka and not to use/copy/clone it.

[F. Bluemers]

...snip....
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?
...snap...

I guess language is playing its tricks again
in some cases copy can also mean a single item.
Like say you buy rybka,you get a copy.
Same with books,cd's etc.
Best
Fonzy

[jpqy]

Common people ,let's play chess again,test your engines, bring the results on the forum and beat rybka That's the spirit i want to see

Jean-Paul.

[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?

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.

When you want to discuss something _sensibly_ I am willing. Your above statement is just before burning out my bullshit detector. This isn't about Crafty. it is about a logical and rational way of testing a book. And _nobody_ would test a book using program A, and then actually use that book with program B. That passes no "smell test" I can think of, sorry. And again, it has _nothing_ to do with crafty.

There was a time when I _had_ the "strongest engine out there". Once one goes to public-source, that becomes very unlikely, for reasons that are obvious to _most_ of us (apparently yourself excluded, of course). Or, perhaps, you just wanted to throw in a gratuitous insult as a "parting shot"???

One thing I _can_ say. There has never been any suspicion that _I_ copied any other program. Very few others can make that statement and offer any significant proof. Because those of us releasing source make it quite obvious or work is original, except for the known clones of course (toga/fruit/etc, glaurung/stockfish/etc.)

[bob]

Any chance you can possibly learn how to quote properly so one can follow the discussion???

[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.

We are not whining and complaining here. I am just trying to defend against some accusations. Don't I have the right to defend myself against accusations here? Is this forum under dictatorship? Would I just keep being silent even when I'm being accused of stuff that are just entirely false?

My operator/tester committed a mistake and apologized for that. What are you trying to achieve by making the issue bigger? You want to discredit me as dishonest? You don't want TL to join the next CCT because of those accusations? You're thinking that we use Rybka in tournaments? My goal is to beat Rybka and not to use/copy/clone it.

My accusation was that your program was kibitzing bullshit and was not "TwistedLogic". There is nothing to defend, as this actually happened exactly as outlined.

Why not stop the defending when there is no defense other than "I screwed up, and realize it should not have happened, and won't do it again" followed by moving on...

[F. Bluemers]

Any chance you can possibly learn how to quote properly so one can follow the discussion???

No Bob,but wait,next time I'll use the code,/code tags.
have a nice day
Fonzy

[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.

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.

We are not whining and complaining here. I am just trying to defend against some accusations. Don't I have the right to defend myself against accusations here? Is this forum under dictatorship? Would I just keep being silent even when I'm being accused of stuff that are just entirely false?

My operator/tester committed a mistake and apologized for that. What are you trying to achieve by making the issue bigger? You want to discredit me as dishonest? You don't want TL to join the next CCT because of those accusations? You're thinking that we use Rybka in tournaments? My goal is to beat Rybka and not to use/copy/clone it.

My accusation was that your program was kibitzing bullshit and was not "TwistedLogic". There is nothing to defend, as this actually happened exactly as outlined.

Why not stop the defending when there is no defense other than "I screwed up, and realize it should not have happened, and won't do it again" followed by moving on...

I think we already have done that. My operator with the intention to have the best book for our engine tests his opening book with the best method he could think of. He unwittingly used the TL account for that. He admitted he has erred and apologized. He said that it wouldn't happen again. I myself doesn't agree with using the TL account for that as just like what you've said that it distorts the ratings, I don't like that. What more do you want?

Okay I apologize if there is something I have said that offends anyone. Can we move on now?

[Eizenhammer]

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."

I am happy to read this new nonsense, as it makes my point clearer than any additional explanations could ever hope to achieve.
What you write is what is in your mind, but of course a program can kibitz on a) Fics, b) on any different chess server or c) even on a server installed in your own network and used by you for testing purposes.

In case c) you would have a copy of TLCCT (you assume I know you don't have one, I know, or do you?) and be the owner of the account, to say so. Rybka output would be extremely suspicious and more than reason enough to start an immediate action on CCC or wherever, everybody would say: "It looks like this version of TL is a clone. wth ...etc".

There would be more about it , but I am getting tired of this, and you lack any self criticism, so it is pointless to continue.
But please notice that just like in the simple example in this posting I think the problem in general is that you think that everybody has the exact same mental representation of the world you have, but your concepts are a singularity, like anybody else's, and it is wrong to think that everybody is going to interpret all you write just the way you meant it . There are necessarily many assumptions both on the side of the writer and the reader and by such an unreflected and unsharp language you increase the risk of misinterpretation.
In normal conversations this can often be ignored (but it leads to problems all the time, as Charles Roberson tried to explain, I guess), but when it is about something serious like new clone suspicions it is embarrassing and a reason to apologize for.
Of course you won't.

[bob]

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."

I am happy to read this new nonsense, as it makes my point clearer than any additional explanations could ever hope to achieve.
What you write is what is in your mind, but of course a program can kibitz on a) Fics, b) on any different chess server or c) even on a server installed in your own network and used by you for testing purposes.

Please stop the crap. How could _I_ see the kibitzes if they are on _your_ server??? Had it been on FICS, and were there a TwistedLogicCCT account there (note I did give the _specific_ ICC-only handle, which you cleverly overlook) it would not have mattered, would it? It is either twisted logic, or it is Rybka. It can't be both. If it says it is twisted logic, it ought to be twisted logic. Been my point all along.

Keep trying to deflect, but it isn't working.

In case c) you would have a copy of TLCCT (you assume I know you don't have one, I know, or do you?) and be the owner of the account, to say so. Rybka output would be extremely suspicious and more than reason enough to start an immediate action on CCC or wherever, everybody would say: "It looks like this version of TL is a clone. wth ...etc".

There would be more about it , but I am getting tired of this, and you lack any self criticism, so it is pointless to continue.
But please notice that just like in the simple example in this posting I think the problem in general is that you think that everybody has the exact same mental representation of the world you have, but your concepts are a singularity, like anybody else's, and it is wrong to think that everybody is going to interpret all you write just the way you meant it . There are necessarily many assumptions both on the side of the writer and the reader and by such an unreflected and unsharp language you increase the risk of misinterpretation.
In normal conversations this can often be ignored (but it leads to problems all the time, as Charles Roberson tried to explain, I guess), but when it is about something serious like new clone suspicions it is embarrassing and a reason to apologize for.
Of course you won't.

I don't expect anybody to have _any_ specific mindset. I do expect people here to be able to critically read something and extract relevant details before going off on a rant.

point 1. "TwistedLogicCCT" was used for CCT events. They have _only_ been held on ICC. So that much is clear.

Point 2. It claimed to be TL, but was in fact Rybka. My point and that has been made clear and confirmed.

The rest of the discussion is purely nonsense. I intend on maintaining a certain level of standards for what I do, which includes when I say something is Crafty, it will _always_ be Crafty. Not Crafty today, Rybka tomorrow. That's nonsense. Why name the account "twistedlogic" and then run rybka or any other program? Instead name it something more appropriate "any-program-CCT" or whatever and then run anything you want. Simple enough, IMHO.

You did notice my post containing ICC's policy for computer accounts? Namely that the program's name and so forth are required? A policy that not only makes sense, but is common sense as well.

So, follow the rules, use some common sense, and this doesn't happen. Run the wrong program and someone is likely to have something to say. Simple, really.