The near future of computer chess

[Graham Banks]

the CCRL, CEGT, and IPON are testing Rybka, Houdini, and Stelka...

Shows you how carefully you look. The last version of Strelka that CCRL tested was 2.0.

?
Graham,
one doesn't have to 'look carefully' at the CCRL list and see that Strelka appears on it...
anyway, what does the version of Strelka have to do with it?

is 2.0 acceptable, but 5.0 not?

Can't speak for the other testers, but I certainly have no intention of testing Strelka 5.0 or 5.1.
2.0 is pretty old, isn't it?
Anyway, we're digressing from the thread's intention I suspect.

[kranium]

the CCRL, CEGT, and IPON are testing Rybka, Houdini, and Stelka...

Shows you how carefully you look. The last version of Strelka that CCRL tested was 2.0.

?
Graham,
one doesn't have to 'look carefully' at the CCRL list and see that Strelka appears on it...
anyway, what does the version of Strelka have to do with it?

is 2.0 acceptable, but 5.0 not?

Can't speak for the other testers, but I certainly have no intention of testing Strelka 5.0 or 5.1.
2.0 is pretty old, isn't it?
Anyway, we're digressing from the thread's intention I suspect.

yes i fully realize you make completely arbitrary decisions on what to test...
and i know that you all never speak as representing the group as a 'whole'
i.e. a convenient way to escape public responsibility and accountability IMO

apparently, the CCRL is simply a bunch of disjointed amateur enthousiasts who test what they want with their own electricity...
and there's absolutely no group leadrship or overriding organizational/group 'policy'...?
amazingly enough, we are also to believe that not even 1 CCRL tester is interested in IvanHoe...?!

On one of the many CC forums you insesently spam with your influential biased non-inclusive rating lists...you posted what appears to be a thought-out and formulated 'group policy':

"The purpose of our rating lists is provide engine authors and enthusiasts with a general comparison of engine strength. We also provide other data that could be of interest.
For various reasons, there may be some engines that do not appear on our lists, therefore it is useful to look at other rating lists as well as ours.
The inclusion or exclusion of engines in our lists should not be taken as our group making a statement about their legality or status. However, where there is controversy surrounding an engine in our lists, we have indicated this.
We test chess engines for our own enjoyment and receive no payment for doing so."
http://www.chess2u.com/t4717-ccrl-ratin ... ember-2011

Graham,
i've asked you previously, have not got an answer, please don't be evasive...
have you or any other member of CCRL ever received free copies of Rybka or any other commercial engine?

[Graham Banks]

the CCRL, CEGT, and IPON are testing Rybka, Houdini, and Stelka...

Shows you how carefully you look. The last version of Strelka that CCRL tested was 2.0.

?
Graham,
one doesn't have to 'look carefully' at the CCRL list and see that Strelka appears on it...
anyway, what does the version of Strelka have to do with it?

is 2.0 acceptable, but 5.0 not?

Can't speak for the other testers, but I certainly have no intention of testing Strelka 5.0 or 5.1.
2.0 is pretty old, isn't it?
Anyway, we're digressing from the thread's intention I suspect.

yes i fully realize you make completely arbitrary decisions on what to test...
and i know that you all never speak as representing the group as a 'whole'
i.e. a convenient way to escape public responsibility and accountability IMO

apparently, the CCRL is simply a bunch of disjointed amateur enthousiasts who test what they want with their own electricity...
and there's absolutely no group leadrship or overriding organizational/group 'policy'...?
amazingly enough, we are also to believe that not even 1 CCRL tester is interested in IvanHoe...?!

On one of the many CC forums you insesently spam with your influential biased non-inclusive rating lists...you posted what appears to be a thought-out and formulated 'group policy':

"The purpose of our rating lists is provide engine authors and enthusiasts with a general comparison of engine strength. We also provide other data that could be of interest.
For various reasons, there may be some engines that do not appear on our lists, therefore it is useful to look at other rating lists as well as ours.
The inclusion or exclusion of engines in our lists should not be taken as our group making a statement about their legality or status. However, where there is controversy surrounding an engine in our lists, we have indicated this.
We test chess engines for our own enjoyment and receive no payment for doing so."
http://www.chess2u.com/t4717-ccrl-ratin ... ember-2011

Graham,
i've asked you previously, have not got an answer, please don't be evasive...
have you or any other member of CCRL ever received free copies of Rybka or any other commercial engine?

It's been asked and answered previously as I keep telling you.
We have been fortunate enough to receive a few engines free or at discounted prices, just as some other testing groups or testers do.
It can be prohibitively expensive for many testers to buy all commercial engines at full price, so any assistance that we receive in this regard is extremely helpful and much appreciated.
We don't ask for donations (as many seem to do these days) and nobody sponsors us, even though electricity is expensive and running computers at full capacity 24/7 can shorten their lifespan.

And yes, we're just a group of amateur enthusiasts who love testing engines.
CCRL does have a constitution though, because in any group situation, you're bound to get awkward situations arise that need to be dealt with in ways that all members are aware of beforehand.

As for the statement that is attached to each of our update reports, it was agreed on by the group.
What don't you understand about the advice given to look at a range of rating lists? There is no perfect rating list.

Now - when are you going to write your own chess engine? I'd be very keen to test it.

[stegemma]

I think that there are two kind of people, here and out of here. Those who like to do all by himself and those who like to start from someone else's work. All other thinking, logical explanations, talking about "time has changed", talking about "the source are there, why not use it?", talking about "you're the old way to do it... that's our new way to do it" are "stronzate" (ask google to translate from italian). The problem is one and only one:

There are a group of people that want to compete in a well defined way and someone else who want to compete with the same people not respecting their rules. Stop.

I ask them: why don't you play all against yourself? I would be happy to compete in a ICGA event respecting all a the ICGA rules but the same i could amuse myself by winning against all of you copy-men copying me too from some else's work. The same can be done by anybody else here. So do you know where are the true problem? That you fall in this group of onest workers and want to compete with your one rules. Too many easy.... too many easy...... this is the easiest way to "compete". So, all of you copy-men people just take a tablet pc and go with that tablet playing in a human tournament and just then say to the opponents: "you're the old man who don't know that there are software that play better than you... why shouldn't use it?".

Ok, for me the right way to approach our hobby is to start from scratch, to never copy a single line of code, to be honest against our opponents.

Ok, somebody else have a different approach? I don't want to kill them.... but i'm asking why they are so interested in participate to our tournament.

Ok again.... i know the answer..... and you too: our way to program is the hardest and win against us it's the only satisfaction that they can achieve from their annoying copy-and-just-change-something activity.

That's all folks.

[lkaufman]

I'm not "bashing" Ivanhoe. I'm simply saying that it is a reasonable position for a testing organization to refuse to test a program whose author they cannot identify. In the case of Ippolit, the use of pseudonymns made it obvious, but even if they use real names that is only useful if someone can contact them by email or phone. Most of the authors (myself included) are easy to contact; no one claims that Vas Rajlich or Don Dailey or Richard Vida are pseudonymns or fictitious people or impossible to contact.

I do agree that it is illogical to test Houdini but not Ivanhoe, as they are both modified versions of Ippolit, so either the modifiers are considered the authors or the original unknown authors are. Since Houdini is already being tested, I don't object to Ivanhoe also being tested, as they are clearly somewhat different and were modified substantially by different people.

[kranium]

We have been fortunate enough to receive a few engines free or at discounted prices, just as some other testing groups or testers do.

a few at discounted prices?
not according to George:

7. "As a tester he has befriended me, and he is laughing all the way to the bank." This one is really off the charts. Have no idea how you reach this conclusion. Competent testers are not a rarity. And he never asked me to do any private beta testing for him. I do not think that you realize that every beta, following beta, version, upgraded version with an "a", "c", "n", whatever- before he went commercial- I have each and every one of them. Then after he went commercial- I have every beta, every version he sold, and every update to every version. If he wrote it, I have it. And from the first free beta to the last commercial version he has put out- it has cost me NADA- i.e., not one dime have I spent. It was all given to me free.
So if he is laughing at me- I missed the joke and the punch line.

It can be prohibitively expensive for many testers to buy all commercial engines at full price, so any assistance that we receive in this regard is extremely helpful and much appreciated.

Developing an engine is equally or more expensive....until now, only Vas has received enormous corporate financial support...
enough to buy testing machines, hire a Grandmaster for eval help, etc..
i.e. plenty of financial resources to push the envelope far forward, and he has topped the CCRL rating list for many years now...
and this in spite of serious plagiarism accusations and evidence?

You been one of the most dogmatic and steadfast Rybka defenders for the last 5 years.
You have been 'compensated' for you time and effort with free copies...
how can you or your organization not be unduly influenced under such circumstances?

What don't you understand about the advice given to look at a range of rating lists? There is no perfect rating list.

I do certainly understand there are fair, impartial, and unbiased 'open' lists that are mutually all-inclusive,
and others like the CCRL, CEGT, and IPON...
who apparently have been 'enjoying benefits of 'their close association (friendship) with top commercial engine authors like Vas for years...

no wonder the die-hard loyalty and dedication...
but this is a problem...i'm surprised to see that you just don't get it?

[Graham Banks]

We have been fortunate enough to receive a few engines free or at discounted prices, just as some other testing groups or testers do.

a few at discounted prices?
not according to George:

7. "As a tester he has befriended me, and he is laughing all the way to the bank." This one is really off the charts. Have no idea how you reach this conclusion. Competent testers are not a rarity. And he never asked me to do any private beta testing for him. I do not think that you realize that every beta, following beta, version, upgraded version with an "a", "c", "n", whatever- before he went commercial- I have each and every one of them. Then after he went commercial- I have every beta, every version he sold, and every update to every version. If he wrote it, I have it. And from the first free beta to the last commercial version he has put out- it has cost me NADA- i.e., not one dime have I spent. It was all given to me free.
So if he is laughing at me- I missed the joke and the punch line.

It can be prohibitively expensive for many testers to buy all commercial engines at full price, so any assistance that we receive in this regard is extremely helpful and much appreciated.

Developing an engine is equally or more expensive....until now, only Vas has received enormous corporate financial support...
enough to buy testing machines, hire a Grandmaster for eval help, etc..
i.e. plenty of financial resources to push the envelope far forward, and he has topped the CCRL rating list for many years now...
and this in spite of serious plagiarism accusations and evidence?

You been one of the most dogmatic and steadfast Rybka defenders for the last 5 years.
You have been 'compensated' for you time and effort with free copies...
how can you or your organization not be unduly influenced under such circumstances?

What don't you understand about the advice given to look at a range of rating lists? There is no perfect rating list.

I do certainly understand there are fair, impartial, and unbiased 'open' lists that are mutually all-inclusive,
and others like the CCRL, CEGT, and IPON...
who apparently have been 'enjoying benefits of 'their close association (friendship) with top commercial engine authors like Vas for years...

no wonder the die-hard loyalty and dedication...
but this is a problem...
i'm surprised to see that you just don't get it?

I hate to tell you this Norman, but any given engine plays the same regardless of whether it's free, discounted or full price.
Doesn't affect the rating at all.

As for being influenced by getting an engine free or discounted, take a look at the wide range of engines we've tested.
Hell - even the strongest version of Cyclone has almost 2000 games in the 40/40 list, even though you were blacklisted by many testers or testing groups because of your past actions. And guess who gave up his computer time to play most of those?
By the way, which list does Rybka still top after all these years? Ooops - SSDF - forgot about that.

If I'm lucky, I might personally have contact with most top engine authors by email perhaps once a year and sometimes that might only be to wish them a Merry Christmas.
Still - I do try to be friendly to them, so if you call that a good friendship, I'll take it.

[Laskos]

I'm not "bashing" Ivanhoe. I'm simply saying that it is a reasonable position for a testing organization to refuse to test a program whose author they cannot identify. In the case of Ippolit, the use of pseudonymns made it obvious, but even if they use real names that is only useful if someone can contact them by email or phone. Most of the authors (myself included) are easy to contact; no one claims that Vas Rajlich or Don Dailey or Richard Vida are pseudonymns or fictitious people or impossible to contact.

I do agree that it is illogical to test Houdini but not Ivanhoe, as they are both modified versions of Ippolit, so either the modifiers are considered the authors or the original unknown authors are. Since Houdini is already being tested, I don't object to Ivanhoe also being tested, as they are clearly somewhat different and were modified substantially by different people.

The fact they keep their identity anonymous could be interpreted in flattering terms, at least this is how things are seen in most branches of arts or sciences when an important contribution is made. What world are you coming from? Police department? When you publish a work, do folks ask you for your birth certificate? And you can even contact them on their forum, if the condition to contact an anonymous author of an important work is stated anywhere.

IvanHoe is _not_ Houdini or Rybka, its status is as clean as Komodo's status, which we all know is clean. A proven cloner Vas Rajlich claimed that some parents of IvanHoe are clones of his engine. Frankly, is it enough for you? And IvanHoe is not "derived" from Ippos, it's the final, multi-core, multi-featured, state of the art Ippo. A supreme engine all-around, and an inspiration for many.

Kai

[kranium]

Hell - even the strongest version of Cyclone has almost 2000 games in the 40/40 list, even though you were blacklisted by many testers or testing groups because of your past actions. And guess who gave up his computer time to play most of those?

i see,
i should be indebted to you, and not criticize because you did me a favor by testing Cyclone...?

well, apparently it's a personal thing with you

i quite 'naively' assumed that the CCRL (and CEGT/IPON) would behave in a mature professional manner, and would be motivated to test 'all legally available engines' in an objective and unbiased manner...
that means regardless of whether they 'liked' the author, free copies of commercial engines, the color of his skin, the author's history, if he was anonymous', etc., etc.
a very reasonable expectation...

my bad!

[kranium]

I'm not "bashing" Ivanhoe. I'm simply saying that it is a reasonable position for a testing organization to refuse to test a program whose author they cannot identify. In the case of Ippolit, the use of pseudonymns made it obvious, but even if they use real names that is only useful if someone can contact them by email or phone. Most of the authors (myself included) are easy to contact; no one claims that Vas Rajlich or Don Dailey or Richard Vida are pseudonymns or fictitious people or impossible to contact.

I do agree that it is illogical to test Houdini but not Ivanhoe, as they are both modified versions of Ippolit, so either the modifiers are considered the authors or the original unknown authors are. Since Houdini is already being tested, I don't object to Ivanhoe also being tested, as they are clearly somewhat different and were modified substantially by different people.

The fact they keep their identity anonymous could be interpreted in flattering terms, at least this is how things are seen in most branches of arts or sciences when an important contribution is made. What world are you coming from? Police department? When you publish a work, do folks ask you for your birth certificate? And you can even contact them on their forum, if the condition to contact an anonymous author of an important work is stated anywhere.

IvanHoe is _not_ Houdini or Rybka, its status is as clean as Komodo's status, which we all know is clean. A proven cloner Vas Rajlich claimed that some parents of IvanHoe are clones of his engine. Frankly, is it enough for you? And IvanHoe is not "derived" from Ippos, it's the final, multi-core, multi-featured, state of the art Ippo. A supreme engine all-around, and an inspiration for many.

Kai

yes, exactly...

Larry-
remaining 'anonymous' fits perfectly with the 'socialist/communist' ideal.
individuals with such beliefs would never accept individual recognition for their efforts...
they are all (equal) workers simply striving to achieve a goal.

remaining anonymous makes sense...it's not a crime!

it's very unfortunate that many in the capitalist/materialistic 'West' absolutely cannot (or refuse to) understand that viewpoint...
i.e. must one always stand up, grab the microphone and spotlight, dance and shake tambourines ...?
in an effort to be recognized, (financially?) for his/her contribution...?
no!

it's very sad that some here think the whole Ippolit Decembrist's revolution is some sort of joke..?
(i suggest it's because they can't or are unwilling to understand it)

well, it's for real, and it's happening right under your nose....
sticking one's head in the sand isn't going to make it go away.