Isn't it strange when they test such a strong engine but don't test my weak engine?
(sigh)
Nope, this is
not 'strange':
1) there are not so much (super)strong engines but a lot of weak engines; an engine with 2500
couldn't be easy to make from scratch (which you most likely didn't) and certainly not within a
year or so; but even then it wouldn't be special as there are hundreds of middle range engines
nowadays; whereby you are nr 1 not in rating but making the most noise (eg testing requests)
2) Andrew G already had a programmer reputation (Ethereal) and is using his real name.
3) quite some versions of your engine(s) *have* already been tested
4) your 'engine' apparently is changing from week to week so i can imagine
the testers would like to see:
a) a more definitive version, with :
b) a better name (as was already discussed here, i admit, ask an AI
for some engine name suggestions, i would suggest, well at least once
you decided how to continue development; and with which aim(s) )
Concluding, this all may seem quite critical and negative to you, but i'm only
trying to tell you to rethink your approach (if you're not acting a troll); for
example, if you have a better/improved move generation algorithm, then
why not eg. mail Lombardo, the programmer of Obsidian, he then might
get ahead of SF, for a change; ofcourse it wouldn't be kept secret, like a
private engine but who cares; alternatively, approach Andrew G (Torch) and
(try to) sell this improved code -for torch- to chess.com (not much chance, but it's
an idea anyway); or whatever, up to you ofcourse but some (self)reflection might no
hurt at the beginning of a new year (yes, i also try it sometimes, believe me, or not)
PS and while continuing development, you can ofcourse do some
testing yourself, as i already suggested; that shouldnt be so
difficult for a 'computer science graduate from Stanford' huh
)
