Additional CEGT-Blitz-Update with 9271 more games

[Graham Banks]

Is not the reason you chose not to test Houdini, the same reason Rybka is in so much trouble now, but who are you still defending???

And Mr. Banks you don't live in a vacuum. It was the Rybka Forum that posted the standard of what is a clone or not a clone. And what is a legit program, and what was not a legit program. Vas said a legit program is one that was tested by CEGT or CCRL. Now that CEGT is testing Houdini, Vas has made CEGT "Persona non grata" It is a fair question for you to answer. Since you accepted this definition from the Rybka forum, and you are a founding member of CCRL and accepted Vas's definition.

The policies of the Rybka forum and statements that they make regarding testing groups have nothing to do with me as Roger said.

Even if we end up removing Rybka from our lists (which interestingly none of testing groups or other testers have done yet as far as I'm aware), as things currently stand we would still not test the Ippo engines.

[mwyoung]

Is not the reason you chose not to test Houdini, the same reason Rybka is in so much trouble now, but who are you still defending???

And Mr. Banks you don't live in a vacuum. It was the Rybka Forum that posted the standard of what is a clone or not a clone. And what is a legit program, and what was not a legit program. Vas said a legit program is one that was tested by CEGT or CCRL. Now that CEGT is testing Houdini, Vas has made CEGT "Persona non grata" It is a fair question for you to answer. Since you accepted this definition from the Rybka forum, and you are a founding member of CCRL and accepted Vas's definition.

"The policies of the Rybka forum and statements that they make regarding testing groups have nothing to do with me as Roger said."

Even if we end up removing Rybka from our lists (which interestingly none of testing groups or other testers have done yet as far as I'm aware), as things currently stand we would still not test the Ippo engines.

"The policies of the Rybka forum and statements that they make regarding testing groups have nothing to do with me as Roger said."

Mr. Banks why not answer the question, or give us your opinion. You are a founding member of CCRL. You have put yourself in the position of Rybka's and Vas main defender on this forum. Don't tell us you now live in a vacuum, and what was posted on the Rybka Home Page regarding the standards of what is a legit program in regards to CEGT and your testing group CCRL has nothing to do with you now. You have accepted what the Rybka forum has posted in regards to your testing group. And the standard of legitimacy for chess programs. My question is a fair question for you to answer.

[Graham Banks]

"The policies of the Rybka forum and statements that they make regarding testing groups have nothing to do with me as Roger said."

Even if we end up removing Rybka from our lists (which interestingly none of testing groups or other testers have done yet as far as I'm aware), as things currently stand we would still not test the Ippo engines.

"The policies of the Rybka forum and statements that they make regarding testing groups have nothing to do with me as Roger said."

Mr. Banks why not answer the question, or give us your opinion. You are a founding member of CCRL. You have put yourself in the position of Rybka's and Vas main defender on this forum. Don't tell us you now live in a vacuum, and what was posted on the Rybka Home Page regarding the standards of what is a legit program in regards to CEGT and your testing group CCRL has nothing to do with you now. You have accepted what the Rybka forum has posted in regards to your testing group. And the standard of legitimacy for chess programs. My question is a fair question for you to answer.

I've already answered it. It has nothing at all to with me.

[mwyoung]

"The policies of the Rybka forum and statements that they make regarding testing groups have nothing to do with me as Roger said."

Even if we end up removing Rybka from our lists (which interestingly none of testing groups or other testers have done yet as far as I'm aware), as things currently stand we would still not test the Ippo engines.

"The policies of the Rybka forum and statements that they make regarding testing groups have nothing to do with me as Roger said."

Mr. Banks why not answer the question, or give us your opinion. You are a founding member of CCRL. You have put yourself in the position of Rybka's and Vas main defender on this forum. Don't tell us you now live in a vacuum, and what was posted on the Rybka Home Page regarding the standards of what is a legit program in regards to CEGT and your testing group CCRL has nothing to do with you now. You have accepted what the Rybka forum has posted in regards to your testing group. And the standard of legitimacy for chess programs. My question is a fair question for you to answer.

I've already answered it. It has nothing at all to with me.

"I've already answered it. It has nothing at all to with me"



Fine it has nothing to do with CCRL and yourself.

Then lets ask you what you can answer, and what the Rybka forum and website claim CCRL and yourself can do.

Question #1:

Will you as a founding member of CCRL or CCRL as a group, be asking the Rybka website and forum to remove your CCRL links and the below statement from the Rybka website and forum? Since you are JUST a group of independent testers.

Yes or No ?

From Rybka Forum:
For those of you, who want to check which engines are clones and which aren't, I recommend looking at the professional rating lists like CCRL (http://computerchess.org.uk/). They check new engines, don't test clones and are independent. The lists are updated regularly, so you can expect them to be up to date. Also the engine's appearance (description on the website, engine name and so on) indicates if it's a serious engine or just a clone.


Question #2:

As an independent group of chess engine testers with no legal standing, or authority, or expertise, or procedure for evaluating chess programs indepentent from the chess author. CCRL is not in a postiion to judge what chess programs may be a clone and "which aren't"

Mr Banks is this a fair statement in regards to CCRL, and CCRL proclaimed purpose as a group of independent testers?

Yes or No ?

[Graham Banks]

Then lets ask you what you can answer, and what the Rybka forum and website claim CCRL and yourself can do.

Question #1:

Will you as a founding member of CCRL or CCRL as a group, be asking the Rybka website and forum to remove your CCRL links and the below statement from the Rybka website and forum? Since you are JUST a group of independent testers.

Yes or No ?

From Rybka Forum:
For those of you, who want to check which engines are clones and which aren't, I recommend looking at the professional rating lists like CCRL (http://computerchess.org.uk/). They check new engines, don't test clones and are independent. The lists are updated regularly, so you can expect them to be up to date. Also the engine's appearance (description on the website, engine name and so on) indicates if it's a serious engine or just a clone.


Question #2:

As an independent group of chess engine testers with no legal standing, or authority, or expertise, or procedure for evaluating chess programs indepentent from the chess author. CCRL is not in a postiion to judge what chess programs may be a clone and "which aren't"

Mr Banks is this a fair statement in regards to CCRL, and CCRL proclaimed purpose as a group of independent testers?

Yes or No ?

You might have seen the note at the beginning of our latest update report, stating that our excluding engines from our lists is not to be seen as our group's statement on the legality or status of said engines.
The statement is going to be put at the top of all our rating lists.

Our group is not interested in being the guinea pig for testing new engines. We currently have a policy of only testing publicly available engines, no betas or private versions.

We are certainly not in a position to determine whether new engines are clones because we're testers, not fully fledged programmers.

So in summing up, yes we must ask for a change to that statement on the Rybka forum and elsewhere.
In my opinion, any forum is welcome to link to our lists as long as that is made clear.

This is still being discussed within our group.

[mwyoung]

Then lets ask you what you can answer, and what the Rybka forum and website claim CCRL and yourself can do.

Question #1:

Will you as a founding member of CCRL or CCRL as a group, be asking the Rybka website and forum to remove your CCRL links and the below statement from the Rybka website and forum? Since you are JUST a group of independent testers.

Yes or No ?

From Rybka Forum:
For those of you, who want to check which engines are clones and which aren't, I recommend looking at the professional rating lists like CCRL (http://computerchess.org.uk/). They check new engines, don't test clones and are independent. The lists are updated regularly, so you can expect them to be up to date. Also the engine's appearance (description on the website, engine name and so on) indicates if it's a serious engine or just a clone.


Question #2:

As an independent group of chess engine testers with no legal standing, or authority, or expertise, or procedure for evaluating chess programs indepentent from the chess author. CCRL is not in a postiion to judge what chess programs may be a clone and "which aren't"

Mr Banks is this a fair statement in regards to CCRL, and CCRL proclaimed purpose as a group of independent testers?

Yes or No ?

You might have seen the note at the beginning of our latest update report, stating that our excluding engines from our lists is not to be seen as our group's statement on the legality or status of said engines.
The statement is going to be put at the top of all our rating lists.

Our group is not interested in being the guinea pig for testing new engines. We currently have a policy of only testing publicly available engines, no betas or private versions.

We are certainly not in a position to determine whether new engines are clones because we're testers, not fully fledged programmers.

So in summing up, yes we must ask for a change to that statement on the Rybka forum and elsewhere.
In my opinion, any forum is welcome to link to our lists as long as that is made clear.

This is still being discussed within our group.

Mr. Banks.
If you follow up on the above, and Rybka forum and website removes those statement from their forum regarding CCRL. And you stop allowing Vas to use CCRL as proof of other programs being clones. I no longer have a problem with CCRL.

[Graham Banks]

Then lets ask you what you can answer, and what the Rybka forum and website claim CCRL and yourself can do.

Question #1:

Will you as a founding member of CCRL or CCRL as a group, be asking the Rybka website and forum to remove your CCRL links and the below statement from the Rybka website and forum? Since you are JUST a group of independent testers.

Yes or No ?

From Rybka Forum:
For those of you, who want to check which engines are clones and which aren't, I recommend looking at the professional rating lists like CCRL (http://computerchess.org.uk/). They check new engines, don't test clones and are independent. The lists are updated regularly, so you can expect them to be up to date. Also the engine's appearance (description on the website, engine name and so on) indicates if it's a serious engine or just a clone.


Question #2:

As an independent group of chess engine testers with no legal standing, or authority, or expertise, or procedure for evaluating chess programs indepentent from the chess author. CCRL is not in a postiion to judge what chess programs may be a clone and "which aren't"

Mr Banks is this a fair statement in regards to CCRL, and CCRL proclaimed purpose as a group of independent testers?

Yes or No ?

You might have seen the note at the beginning of our latest update report, stating that our excluding engines from our lists is not to be seen as our group's statement on the legality or status of said engines.
The statement is going to be put at the top of all our rating lists.

Our group is not interested in being the guinea pig for testing new engines. We currently have a policy of only testing publicly available engines, no betas or private versions.

We are certainly not in a position to determine whether new engines are clones because we're testers, not fully fledged programmers.

So in summing up, yes we must ask for a change to that statement on the Rybka forum and elsewhere.
In my opinion, any forum is welcome to link to our lists as long as that is made clear.

This is still being discussed within our group.

Mr. Banks.
If you follow up on the above, and Rybka forum and website removes those statement from their forum regarding CCRL. And you stop allowing Vas to use CCRL as proof of other programs being clones. I no longer have a problem with CCRL.

Well as I said, that is what I'd like to see happen. It is still being discussed within our group.

Cheers,
Graham.

[De Vos W]

Reading the Rybka forum website is were Mr. Banks is begging Vas to say something in defense of Rybka, and CCRL, but Vas says nothing. Cutting off Mr. Banks at the KNEES. What a fool! Showing the partnership they have, or why else is Mr. Banks begging for support and a statement from Vas. IMO

Link please so that people can read it for themselves.

Agreed that CCRL is NOT independent. More so, the statement made by Felix Kling? stating, " I recommend looking at the professional
rating lists like CCRL...." confirms what some (myself included) have been saying all along that CCRL is an exclusive supporter of
Rybka. It shouldn't shock anyone when I make the statement that CCRL stands to benefit from this and vice versa.
Prima.

[Werner]

Agreed that CCRL is NOT independent. More so, the statement made by Felix Kling? stating, " I recommend looking at the professional
rating lists like CCRL...." confirms what some (myself included) have been saying all along that CCRL is an exclusive supporter of
Rybka. It shouldn't shock anyone when I make the statement that CCRL stands to benefit from this and vice versa.
Prima.

Normally I do not read your postings as they are mostly silly and as here not true! CCRL does not support any engine! I know that as I am in contact with the tester - some of them have been testing for CEGT too!
They provide a list for the community using their money and time - and it is their decision, which engines they test or not. What is your work for the community - I am afraid: nothing!
There are other engine authors beside of Rybka who have to be in mind when you decide what to do. And they decided not to test Houdini and Co. I accept this decision. And this has nothing to do with supporting!

Werner
CEGT team

[Wolfgang]

Agreed that CCRL is NOT independent. More so, the statement made by Felix Kling? stating, " I recommend looking at the professional
rating lists like CCRL...." confirms what some (myself included) have been saying all along that CCRL is an exclusive supporter of
Rybka. It shouldn't shock anyone when I make the statement that CCRL stands to benefit from this and vice versa.
Prima.

Normally I do not read your postings as they are mostly silly and as here not true! CCRL does not support any engine! I know that as I am in contact with the tester - some of them have been testing for CEGT too!
They provide a list for the community using their money and time - and it is their decision, which engines they test or not. What is your work for the community - I am afraid: nothing!
There are other engine authors beside of Rybka who have to be in mind when you decide what to do. And they decided not to test Houdini and Co. I accept this decision. And this has nothing to do with supporting!

Werner
CEGT team

I totally agree with Werner here!

There is no reason for "CCRL-bashing" or "Graham Banks-bashing". They decided not to test Houdini etc. as we did one year ago too. Now we - CEGT - changed our mind but this has nothing to do with CCRL. It was our decision which should be accepted, as well as their decision (not to test) should be accepted.

Wolfgang
CEGT team