I get sick of seeing people with clear agendas posting misinformation regarding testing groups that don't test the Ippo family of engines.
Here is a clear example from another forum (but also echoed here):
Let me put things about the CCRL into perspective:
It's been known that the CCRL don't like engines that gets too close to the current resigning Rybka-version of the time. Remember when Rybka 2.3.2a was the leading version of its time? If you recall, Naum 4.0 (or 4.1, can't remember exact version) finally overtook Rybka 2.3.2a in strength, approximately by 40-80 ELOs. Shortly after, Deep Shredder also overpowered Rybka 2.3.2a by about 50-60 ELO. My figures may not be exact but I do remember both engines had a huge ELO margin over Rybka 2.3.2a.
Keep in mind, these two engines and its authors are well known in computer chess. You would think that after Naum 4.0/1 and Deep Shredder 12 surpassed Rybka 2.3.2a in strength, that you would see it reflected in their CCRL lists at that period. Well, it didn't. For weeks to months, I kept checking the CCRL site to see if both Naum 4.0 and Deep Shredder 12 would be placed in the first-two ranking.....ahead of Rybka 2.3.2a but that didn't occur.
It's when Rybka 3 was released then the CCRL folks "decided to place Naum 4.0 and Deep Shredder 12 ahead of Rybka 2.3.2a" .....after many months of their release. Even now when CCRL do finally show both Naum and Deep shredder 12's ahead, in comparison to Rybka 2.3.2a, they try to show an ELO increase of a mere 1 to maybe 5 Elos. This isn't the truth.
Why do you think this happened? Even when Naum 4.0 and Deep Shredder 12 clearly outperformed Rybka 2.3.2a during it's time, why did it take months for the CCRL members to finally show this? Why not show the truth? Keep in mind, both Alex Naumov and Stephan Meyer-Kahlen (SMK) have been known for a long time and the CCRL still screws these two commercial authors financially. How? Had the people at mass known this truth (actually few people did) in the Rybka 2.3.2a era, they would have purchased Naum 4.0 and Deep Shredder 12 in mass quantities.
I say this to answer your question (which I do understand) why these CCRL folks WILL NOT test engines stronger than Rybka.
For a start, you need to look at the dates of the releases of the engines that this poster refers to:
Rybka 3 came out 5 months before Naum 4 and almost a year after Deep Shredder 11.
Deep Shredder 12 came out almost a year after Rybka 3.
Now here is an excerpt from our update report in Dec 2007 (a month after Deep Shredder 11 was released):
4CPU 64-bit Engines
Rybka 2.3.2a is over 50 ELO stronger than Zappa Mexico.
Deep Shredder 11 lies 40 points further back in third spot.
Naum 2.2 comes in fourth, not too far behind Deep Shredder 11, but ahead of the evenly matched pair of Deep Fritz 10.1 and Hiarcs 11.1.
Single CPU Engines
Rybka 2.3.2a reigns supreme, almost 150 ELO ahead of Shredder 11 and Zappa Mexico.
However, we have just started testing Fritz 11 and it looks likely to take over second spot behind Rybka.
Toga II 1.3.1, Naum 2.2, Hiarcs 11.1, Loop M1-T and Fruit 051103 are within a 20 ELO range of each other.
From our final update report before Rybka 3 was released:
4CPU 64-bit Engines
Rybka 2.3.2a has a 55 elo lead over the very evenly matched pair of Naum 3.1 and Zappa Mexico II.
There is a similar gap back to Deep Shredder 11 and Toga II 1.4.1SE
Single CPU Engines
Rybka 2.3.2a is the strongest engine in this category by a significant margin. It is scary to think how much higher the upcoming Rybka 3 will raise the bar!
A 30 elo spread covers the group of engines vying for second spot - Naum 3.1, Deep Shredder 11 1CPU, Fritz 11, Zappa Mexico II and Toga II 1.4.1SE.
Now January 2009 (one month after Naum 4 was released):
4CPU 64-bit Engines
Rybka 3 remains unchallenged at the top, but has had it's lead slashed to 70 elo by Naum 4.
There is a further gap of 60 elo back to Deep Fritz 11, which is in third spot with a small edge over Zappa Mexico II.
There is a good distance back to Deep Sjeng WC2008 and Deep Shredder 11.
Single CPU Engines
Rybka 3 has a comfortable lead in this category also, although Naum 4 has narrowed the gap considerably.
Zappa Mexico II and Fritz 11 come in next, narrowly ahead of Thinker 5.4a Inert, Deep Sjeng WC2008, Shredder 11 and Toga II 1.4.1SE.
Here are the relative ratings of the said engines in a Nov 2009 rating list soon after Deep Shredder 12 was released:
Hehe, Graham is it really necessary to explain the obvious because someone decided to say some completely crappy things?
We would have observed that if it happened. But it didn't so there was nothing to observe.
Well of course perhaps some people don't know it didn't and may believe this guy's crap and lies, and that may hurt CCRL reputation a bit, so it's a stupid situation where you have to explain the obvious and provide proofs that you are not an elephant(it's a Greek idiom for someone in the unpleasant situation to prove the damn obvious) and all this because a moron decided to do the obvious and post moronic things.
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
George Tsavdaris wrote:Hehe, Graham is it really necessary to explain the obvious because someone decided to say some completely crappy things?
We would have observed that if it happened. But it didn't so there was nothing to observe.
Well of course perhaps some people don't know it didn't and may believe this guy's crap and lies, and that may hurt CCRL reputation a bit, so it's a stupid situation where you have to explain the obvious and provide proofs that you are not an elephant(it's a Greek idiom for someone in the unpleasant situation to prove the damn obvious) and all this because a moron decided to do the obvious and post moronic things.
Hi George,
the sad thing is that nobody had bothered to correct him, even though he posted this well over a week ago. Makes you wonder why.
Just so the issue is very clear, why didn't the CCRL show, at the relevant & valid time, Naum 4.x and DS12 overtaking Rybka 2.3.2a? Why wait later just to show it when Rybka 3 later took reign? Of course, I personally don't want answers from them, as this is no longer of relevance in current time period.
I believe he stated that he'd not bothered to look at CCRL lists since late 2008, so he probably wouldn't have seen these:
Here were our ratings during the month after Deep Shredder 12 was released (October 2009):
To be honest, there is a lot of crap that is being posted that simply deserves no return answer ... and I would think this would be one of them. Most people here have been following the engine lists for years and would immediately realize that the person claiming about this fabricated data is just not really in tune with the history of chess engines. CCRL and CEGT and SSDF and some other testing groups, have given their time and efforts to all for free ... the least someone can do is just sit back and appreciate it. If you don't agree with what engines the testing groups are testing ... well just simply avoid them ... it's not like they are being forced on anyone. I find it incredible that people cannot understand that they can have a different set of rules or have a different set of ethics that they choose to adhere to.
Graham Banks wrote:I get sick of seeing people with clear agendas posting misinformation regarding testing groups that don't test the Ippo family of engines.
Here is a clear example from another forum (but also echoed here):
Testing engines without the best available is like testing sportscars without Porsche and Ferrari... and yes, both have not(!) invented the sports-car, nor the 4wheels, stylish-design and so on...
