In case you missed it: SSDF, shiny new hardware...

[mclane]

Exactly. I do not understand the critics here.
The ssdf has always done a good job.
I was one of their critics in the days in the past.
But looking back and seen it from today, they did a good job.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

The SSDF is now using AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, which is an 8-core processor at 3.6 GHz. They have opted for 16 GB RAM as standard on this hardware.

what is SSDF?

I understand in the past, but now?

We still honor them for what they did in the past, as first one offer a platform for competition long before we heard of Lyudmil Tsvetkov

We still honor them now for willing to play LTC games + permanent brain + opening books + allowing learning software, meaning a rating list where programs are allowed to compete on their strongest settings.

permanent brain = bad;
opening books = bad;
learning features = bad;

Are table bases also bad?

are you really that basic-level?

tablebases provide equal conditions for all, opening books distort a fair competition.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Exactly. I do not understand the critics here.
The ssdf has always done a good job.
I was one of their critics in the days in the past.
But looking back and seen it from today, they did a good job.

a good job of what?

in the past, that might have been true, as all the relevant top competitors have been included?

but now?

what are they actually measuring?

I see also Wasp being included, why precisely Wasp?

why not Andscacs or Texel, for example, which seems to be a national engine moreover?

what is the choice of entries?

any rules there?

all other serious testing groups, btw. all doing excellent job, more or less test all available new engines.

and again, where is latest SF, or at least SF 8?

[mclane]

Why do opening books "distort a fair competition " ??

And what is "fair" ??
If a product / program HAS an opening book, it should be used.
If you do NOT test it, you do not test the program but the engine alone.
I do also have an opening book in my mind when I play chess.
You want to forbid me chess too because it is "unfair" that I have experience while newbies with a different "opening book" have maybe less chances ?!

Competition is about competition. It is fair because all start with the same opening position and the same rules. You can make a uniform platform tournament if you want to guaranty that the hardware is same: all the same CPU and ram etc. but no opening book ?

Isn't that boring ? I would like to see programs play kings Gambit, Englund Gambit, Blackmar diemer Gambit, and would like to see an engine that can handle sacrificing pawns and pieces.

[mclane]

Exactly. I do not understand the critics here.
The ssdf has always done a good job.
I was one of their critics in the days in the past.
But looking back and seen it from today, they did a good job.

a good job of what?

in the past, that might have been true, as all the relevant top competitors have been included?

but now?

what are they actually measuring?

I see also Wasp being included, why precisely Wasp?

why not Andscacs or Texel, for example, which seems to be a national engine moreover?

what is the choice of entries?

any rules there?

all other serious testing groups, btw. all doing excellent job, more or less test all available new engines.

and again, where is latest SF, or at least SF 8?

I guess they are interested in wasp.
I have it also running on my machines.
John stanback is a nice guy and wasp is his new baby.

[Rodolfo Leoni]

There are few cents in my pockets right now (crisis...), but I like to spend two of them here.

When looking at a rating list, one think to see all the strongest engines, latest versions, on top. Here, we can see Komodo and Shredder, but nothing else. It's like a FIDE rating list with Carlsen but without Nakamura. On this, I agree with Lyudmil.

There's something good, as TCs and letting engines using every feature.

I think it's good permanent brain as well as books. There's a lot of work on building a good book, as well as building a good engine.

About learning, that'd be relevant only with theme tournaments. With standard games, there's one chance on 1 million to get the same position out of book twice. Even if that happens, one should take into account learning needs many games on the same position to have good effects. So, learning is ok, but a bit useless.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Why do opening books "distort a fair competition " ??

And what is "fair" ??
If a product / program HAS an opening book, it should be used.
If you do NOT test it, you do not test the program but the engine alone.
I do also have an opening book in my mind when I play chess.
You want to forbid me chess too because it is "unfair" that I have experience while newbies with a different "opening book" have maybe less chances ?!

Competition is about competition. It is fair because all start with the same opening position and the same rules. You can make a uniform platform tournament if you want to guaranty that the hardware is same: all the same CPU and ram etc. but no opening book ?

Isn't that boring ? I would like to see programs play kings Gambit, Englund Gambit, Blackmar diemer Gambit, and would like to see an engine that can handle sacrificing pawns and pieces.

what is the difference between program and engine?

is not it very much obvious, that when you test engine + opening book, you test engine + opening book, when you test opening book, you test opening book, and when you test engine, you test engine?

it seems to me I am talking Swahili to you.

however, any person above a certain age might have some excuse in avoiding to adopt the new, although my experience is that most open people of age would still prefer to adopt new things.

when you do a world ranking, you do a world ranking, and not a local town one.

for example, if you state you are doing a ranking of world football, you will rate Manchester United, Barcelona and Bayern Munich, but not the local town club.

including in the ranking local town club A, local town club B, etc. and still caliming this is a world ranking is plain inconsistent, don't you get it?

you might do a ranking, but you should state this is a ranking of local town clubs.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Exactly. I do not understand the critics here.
The ssdf has always done a good job.
I was one of their critics in the days in the past.
But looking back and seen it from today, they did a good job.

a good job of what?

in the past, that might have been true, as all the relevant top competitors have been included?

but now?

what are they actually measuring?

I see also Wasp being included, why precisely Wasp?

why not Andscacs or Texel, for example, which seems to be a national engine moreover?

what is the choice of entries?

any rules there?

all other serious testing groups, btw. all doing excellent job, more or less test all available new engines.

and again, where is latest SF, or at least SF 8?

I guess they are interested in wasp.
I have it also running on my machines.
John stanback is a nice guy and wasp is his new baby.

I know John Stanback is a nice guy, and Wasp might be a nice name too.

but that changes nothing in the way tested engines are chosen.

just tell me why not latest SF and Houdini?

[mclane]

The opening book and permanent brain is a feature and a package of the engine. Most often these books are optimized for the engine. They fit to the engines playing style.

If you let the engine run into openings it was not made for, they will play weaker.

I see no reason in not allowing opening books or permanent brain when the engine supports this.

Which engine someone chooses to test is his personal decision.

I guess they will sooner or later run latest software on their rizen hardware.
Maybe they lost interest over the years and now the interest is back.

[Milos]

The opening book and permanent brain is a feature and a package of the engine. Most often these books are optimized for the engine. They fit to the engines playing style.

If you let the engine run into openings it was not made for, they will play weaker.

I see no reason in not allowing opening books or permanent brain when the engine supports this.

Which engine someone chooses to test is his personal decision.

I guess they will sooner or later run latest software on their rizen hardware.
Maybe they lost interest over the years and now the interest is back.

Permanent hash is mostly for analysis it doesn't help much in games especially if engine has an option not too reset the hash between moves.
Regarding books, no that's misconception, books are not tuned for a particular engine, but against one. The difference is huge. The strongest book by far is Brainfish book, and only way to win it, is to tune the book against it. That is exactly what most ppl are doing for pathetic events such as WCCC.
And yes books should be banned.