What have you done with my achievements and triumphs? I thank in advance any good Samaritan who can and wants to help me

[Father]

An open letter to the forum and words I throw into the wind, hoping they may be received by some good gentleman and good Samaritan.
Respected gentlemen and people, all of you completely anonymous, who, by virtue of my faith in Divine Providence and the destiny help to me in His incomprehensible Will in the direction of the wind, allow you to read these words that I write to you today and here.
I want to tell you that, like you, I came into the world alone and I will leave the world alone.
I also want to express to you that today, from one moment to the next, and incomprehensibly, I have seen my achievements and goals, for which I fought with all my strength as a human, frustrated by the chess machines, and in the last year, especially against the robot LeelaQueenOdds, and in recent months, LeelaKnightOdds, LeelaRookOdds, and LeelaQueenForKnightOdds.
Through my own effort, dedication and vocation, playing and competing against chess computers, I reached and until this morning I occupied the first place in the table of the 100 best humans in the table of the robot LeelaRookOdds; First place in the table of LeelaQueenForKnight, the sixth place in the table of the robot LeelaKnightOdds, and the 24th in LellaQueenOdds.
However, a moment ago today when looking at the table of positions of the 100 best humans of the four robots, I have discovered that in LeelaQueenOdds I have inexplicably gone down to occupy the 30th position and they deprived me of about 800 elo points;
in LeelaRookOdds when I was leader they deprived me of the first place of the table and now I do not even appear in the table of the 100; On LeelaKnightOdds, I was knocked out of sixth place and placed in 30th, and on LeelaQueenForKnight, I was stripped of my first place in the rankings.
Today I wonder if this is a simple mistake, or a sign of principles and values ​​that only seek to erase some of the marks and achievements I have clearly stated. I prefer to carry them in the depths of my soul, where expropriation lacks scope in its aims. Could someone help me and explain what happened? I want to thank you in advance. Blessings.

[Uri Blass]

This is clearly intentional by the people who are responsible for the table.

This is from the Leela Discord:

"Updated LeelaBoard to ignore any more then 3 consecutive draws as suggested by @Naphthalin. Before this update it was easily possible to "game" the leaderboard by simply drawing repetitively against the Bots."

I can understand their reasons and they want to encourage people to play for a win(it is not that they hate you personally).


Their claims against my claim that it is not fair are the following:
1)maybe I am wrong, but I think the leaderboard shouldnt incentivise people to go for draws. after all you are up a queen (or less"

2)I think one can argue in good faith that playing for a draw with significant odds (either by locking the position or taking early 3-move repetitions) is against the spirit of piece odds play.

[Father]

This is clearly intentional by the people who are responsible for the table.

This is from the Leela Discord:

"Updated LeelaBoard to ignore any more then 3 consecutive draws as suggested by @Naphthalin. Before this update it was easily possible to "game" the leaderboard by simply drawing repetitively against the Bots."

I can understand their reasons and they want to encourage people to play for a win(it is not that they hate you personally).


Their claims against my claim that it is not fair are the following:
1)maybe I am wrong, but I think the leaderboard shouldnt incentivise people to go for draws. after all you are up a queen (or less"

2)I think one can argue in good faith that playing for a draw with significant odds (either by locking the position or taking early 3-move repetitions) is against the spirit of piece odds play.

Thanks, Uri.
Of course, at first glance, it's obvious that this is a deliberate action against me to remove me from the top spots in the top 100 human rankings. It's as obvious as it is that you can't hide the sun with your hands. This whole story is shameful and embarrassing. How sad and sad it makes me. I've reflected and analyzed in peace, what it is that is being protected, what kind of principles and values, and analyzing it very calmly and with a cool head, it's crystal clear to me that it's the shame that causes me to top the bot list.
The fact that a simple street fighter, a player without titles, took first place in two bots, sixth in a third bot, and soon possibly tenth place in the ranking in the fourth bot, could not be allowed under any circumstances. This is how the fallacy that repeatedly tying distorts the rating is devised against the rules of chess; tying loses all value. Since when? Is this or is it an absurd and Manichean argument, and it has affected me specifically. Things and actions must be called by their name, without ambiguity. Why did others remain in the lead positions while they took two leadership positions from me, a sixth place and a twenty-fourth place? If that is not pure and simple persecution, what other name can be given to a path of justice? The answer is simple: "Everyone can write it in their own soul, mind, and heart. If this action had been committed against Hikaru Nakamura, everyone would tremble, but if it were committed against a simple wooden knight, "Catecan," many would laugh, and perhaps no one would seek to correct this injustice.

[lkaufman]

While I was expecting that something would be done to discourage playing for draws, the solution implemented was rather drastic. I think many people felt that the Leaderboard looked ridiculous when someone with almost no wins at all was on top, and they do have a point. It has nothing to do with you personally or your lack of a FIDE title or rating, it's just that it's known to be relatively easy to make early repetition draws since the engine doesn't mind. The argument on your side is that if two players have for example one win and nine losses each, but one player has no draws while the other has ten, then the player with the ten draws has done better. There are some very smart people involved, and surely they can come up with rules that don't ignore draws while not encouraging one to play for them either unless you are actually much worse than when the game began. If I think of something that seems fair I'll propose it. A lot of the problem is that the rules were designed for the queen odds bot where many players scored over 50%, but at the smaller odds almost no one plays at a slow enough time control to score that well. The rules don't work well in such cases.

[Uri Blass]

While I was expecting that something would be done to discourage playing for draws, the solution implemented was rather drastic. I think many people felt that the Leaderboard looked ridiculous when someone with almost no wins at all was on top, and they do have a point. It has nothing to do with you personally or your lack of a FIDE title or rating, it's just that it's known to be relatively easy to make early repetition draws since the engine doesn't mind. The argument on your side is that if two players have for example one win and nine losses each, but one player has no draws while the other has ten, then the player with the ten draws has done better. There are some very smart people involved, and surely they can come up with rules that don't ignore draws while not encouraging one to play for them either unless you are actually much worse than when the game began. If I think of something that seems fair I'll propose it. A lot of the problem is that the rules were designed for the queen odds bot where many players scored over 50%, but at the smaller odds almost no one plays at a slow enough time control to score that well. The rules don't work well in such cases.

I think the best solution is to have 2 leaderboards.
One when you count draw as draw and one when you do not count draws.

I also think that you should try to change the bot to play in a different way against players who play for a draw(when you can know it based on history games of these players).

[Father]

While I was expecting that something would be done to discourage playing for draws, the solution implemented was rather drastic. I think many people felt that the Leaderboard looked ridiculous when someone with almost no wins at all was on top, and they do have a point. It has nothing to do with you personally or your lack of a FIDE title or rating, it's just that it's known to be relatively easy to make early repetition draws since the engine doesn't mind. The argument on your side is that if two players have for example one win and nine losses each, but one player has no draws while the other has ten, then the player with the ten draws has done better. There are some very smart people involved, and surely they can come up with rules that don't ignore draws while not encouraging one to play for them either unless you are actually much worse than when the game began. If I think of something that seems fair I'll propose it. A lot of the problem is that the rules were designed for the queen odds bot where many players scored over 50%, but at the smaller odds almost no one plays at a slow enough time control to score that well. The rules don't work well in such cases.

Respected Mr. Larry Kaufman. Yesterday morning, under specific regulations, I held the lead on two robots, sixth place on a third robot, and between 20th and 30th place on the other robot. With all due respect, I was "robbed" by being stripped of my positions, fairly achieved under the rules of an ecosystem that I fully respected. I am a lawyer, and in legal matters, what they did to me was retroactively apply new rules, regulating consolidated past events. And this violates sacred principles of justice. All players should have been placed on zero and a new count should begin governed by the new rules, and the standings should be respected at the cutoff time, with an unchanged historical report. "What is written is written." As an example, nothing and no one can strip you of your GM title and your Senior World Champion title. Thousands of hours of work and sweat spent in my junior and senior years, competing against elite bots and humans I outperformed, were thrown back in my face, confiscating my achievements. Would you play a single game of chess again, in my case, in the online ecosystem that was attacked?

[Uri Blass]

While I was expecting that something would be done to discourage playing for draws, the solution implemented was rather drastic. I think many people felt that the Leaderboard looked ridiculous when someone with almost no wins at all was on top, and they do have a point. It has nothing to do with you personally or your lack of a FIDE title or rating, it's just that it's known to be relatively easy to make early repetition draws since the engine doesn't mind. The argument on your side is that if two players have for example one win and nine losses each, but one player has no draws while the other has ten, then the player with the ten draws has done better. There are some very smart people involved, and surely they can come up with rules that don't ignore draws while not encouraging one to play for them either unless you are actually much worse than when the game began. If I think of something that seems fair I'll propose it. A lot of the problem is that the rules were designed for the queen odds bot where many players scored over 50%, but at the smaller odds almost no one plays at a slow enough time control to score that well. The rules don't work well in such cases.

Respected Mr. Larry Kaufman. Yesterday morning, under specific regulations, I held the lead on two robots, sixth place on a third robot, and between 20th and 30th place on the other robot. With all due respect, I was "robbed" by being stripped of my positions, fairly achieved under the rules of an ecosystem that I fully respected. I am a lawyer, and in legal matters, what they did to me was retroactively apply new rules, regulating consolidated past events. And this violates sacred principles of justice. All players should have been placed on zero and a new count should begin governed by the new rules, and the standings should be respected at the cutoff time, with an unchanged historical report. "What is written is written." As an example, nothing and no one can strip you of your GM title and your Senior World Champion title. Thousands of hours of work and sweat spent in my junior and senior years, competing against elite bots and humans I outperformed, were thrown back in my face, confiscating my achievements. Would you play a single game of chess again, in my case, in the online ecosystem that was attacked?

I agree it is not fair retroactively to apply new rules.
If they want new rules it is better if they keep the old rating list in the link they have forever and also start a new list in a new link but only based on future games and not based on past games because people could play differently in the past in case of knowing the new rules.

[Uri Blass]

Note that it is possible to see Pablo's old places before changing the rules in the following link
https://80ed1039.leelaboard.pages.dev/

I hope at least the Leela team keep this link without changing the rating and do not delete it.

[chesskobra]

While I was expecting that something would be done to discourage playing for draws, the solution implemented was rather drastic. I think many people felt that the Leaderboard looked ridiculous when someone with almost no wins at all was on top, and they do have a point. It has nothing to do with you personally or your lack of a FIDE title or rating, it's just that it's known to be relatively easy to make early repetition draws since the engine doesn't mind. The argument on your side is that if two players have for example one win and nine losses each, but one player has no draws while the other has ten, then the player with the ten draws has done better. There are some very smart people involved, and surely they can come up with rules that don't ignore draws while not encouraging one to play for them either unless you are actually much worse than when the game began. If I think of something that seems fair I'll propose it. A lot of the problem is that the rules were designed for the queen odds bot where many players scored over 50%, but at the smaller odds almost no one plays at a slow enough time control to score that well. The rules don't work well in such cases.

If it is easy to get draws by early repetition, it is a deficiency of the bot, and to discourage draws, you should improve the bot. Here the developers want to learn from people who can get easy draws and improve the bot, but not give credit to the people who found these deficiencies.

[Father]

While I was expecting that something would be done to discourage playing for draws, the solution implemented was rather drastic. I think many people felt that the Leaderboard looked ridiculous when someone with almost no wins at all was on top, and they do have a point. It has nothing to do with you personally or your lack of a FIDE title or rating, it's just that it's known to be relatively easy to make early repetition draws since the engine doesn't mind. The argument on your side is that if two players have for example one win and nine losses each, but one player has no draws while the other has ten, then the player with the ten draws has done better. There are some very smart people involved, and surely they can come up with rules that don't ignore draws while not encouraging one to play for them either unless you are actually much worse than when the game began. If I think of something that seems fair I'll propose it. A lot of the problem is that the rules were designed for the queen odds bot where many players scored over 50%, but at the smaller odds almost no one plays at a slow enough time control to score that well. The rules don't work well in such cases.

If it is easy to get draws by early repetition, it is a deficiency of the bot, and to discourage draws, you should improve the bot. Here the developers want to learn from people who can get easy draws and improve the bot, but not give credit to the people who found these deficiencies.

Good morning, Mr. Uri Blass, Mr. ChessKobra, and Mr. Larry Kaufman. I have noticed that my pleas were not in vain. That the wind, in its unpredictable behavior, reached you, and for that I will always be grateful. Today, Mr. Uri Blass showed that there is a link with the former positions of humans in robots and that retroactive application of the law is not a fair practice, and Mr. ChessKobra taught that the deficiencies of computers could and are part of a reality that should not be hidden by simply ignoring those who expose them. For me, running a New York marathon with two lumps of cement, one on each of my shoulders, is not easy at all. But if they also force me to run it without my running shoes (taking away my Elo and giving it to other runners and increasing the distance from 42 kilometers and 197 meters to be run only by me), it becomes even more complicated. Catecan (the memories and teachings of my Fathers that live within my soul) and I have been meditating together. And Catecan told me: "Listen, Father. They have the solution in their hands. Simply propose that they create an additional elo column on the same table with the initials "ELO NORMAS FIDE" and the elo. Then I would be like a wooden mule, ready to compete against all the thoroughbred horses even under the new regulations, and your Father and I, overweight.