Fat Fritz 2

[Stonker]

CEGT have published their updated lists now, and have both Stockfish and Fat Fritz 2 on their "Best Versions" list. So they are treating them as separate entities as well.

http://www.cegt.net/40_40%20Rating%20Li ... liste.html

Well them , you are both being misleading in your ratings. Two wrongs don't make a right. The code is is in excess 99.9% Stockfish, with the only different being the Net, Which is like having a different evaluate function.

My question is, is there an undisclosed conflict of interest. Did everyone at CCRL pay for their version of Stockfish-FF2 ? If you received a gratuitous copy, of FF2, then CCRL waas basically bribed to show it as separate. Be careful how you answer, the truth always has a way of coming out.

If anyone of you received a copy of FF2 without paying for you, CCRL is lacking independence.

As a frequent Talkchess visitor (non-programmer, chess patzer yet addicted amateur, like most of us reading here, sorry no proof or checksums on this statement provided) I find the tone of this conversation has evolved from a rightfully questioning, fact checking, sceptical base, to revealing a motivation that seems more partisan and quite frankly toxic than the supposed target Chessbase/FF2. To basically accuse the hosts/administrators of various invaluable and long run rating lists of fraud because they may have to received free samples of the products they test is not funny or entertaining any more. I suggest the accuser checksums their eyesight and sees what progress for instance the various Komodo versions have made in said lists. As a keen 'puter' chess follower, dating back to Chess Genius, Super System III and Mephisto and Novag Super Constellation, as well as a hat doffer to the Stockfish creators and my personal favourite Komodo duo, want to see every possible artificial chess entity on the lists and am thankful to the blood sweat and nerdism that is put into these lists. My guess is that there are a lot of readers here of similar thinking. Cheers. 1. a3. Yep: that bad.

[Guenther]

Latest from the blitz list.

Weird, why would you show two stockfish engines at the top. Isn't normal practice is to show just one version for each engine?

This picture makes it all worse. The uninformed user, who doesn't know that SF12 since long is history, will now believe all marketing
tricks and scam coming from CB. He will now think, 'whoaaa CB FF2 has improved over SF by 23 rating points and is the new number one' lol
(We know that SF dev is surely already over +23 with its own net(s) bove old SF12)

[Guenther]

CEGT have published their updated lists now, and have both Stockfish and Fat Fritz 2 on their "Best Versions" list. So they are treating them as separate entities as well.

http://www.cegt.net/40_40%20Rating%20Li ... liste.html

Well them , you are both being misleading in your ratings. Two wrongs don't make a right. The code is is in excess 99.9% Stockfish, with the only different being the Net, Which is like having a different evaluate function.

My question is, is there an undisclosed conflict of interest. Did everyone at CCRL pay for their version of Stockfish-FF2 ? If you received a gratuitous copy, of FF2, then CCRL waas basically bribed to show it as separate. Be careful how you answer, the truth always has a way of coming out.

If anyone of you received a copy of FF2 without paying for you, CCRL is lacking independence.

Asked this in the very beginning of this thread. No answer...

[crem]

Latest from the blitz list.

Weird, why would you show two stockfish engines at the top. Isn't normal practice is to show just one version for each engine?

This picture makes it all worse. The uninformed user, who doesn't know that SF12 since long is history, will now believe all marketing
tricks and scam coming from CB. He will now think, 'whoaaa CB FF2 has improved over SF by 23 rating points and is the new number one' lol
(We know that SF dev is surely already over +23 with its own net(s) bove old SF12)

Not they will screenshot it and write an article, as they did it last time with FF1.

[Tibono]

As a frequent Talkchess visitor ... I find the tone of this conversation has evolved ... To basically accuse the hosts/administrators of various invaluable and long run rating lists of fraud because they may have to received free samples of the products they test is not funny or entertaining any more. ... My guess is that there are a lot of readers here of similar thinking. ...

+1, I am on the same page. Thanks for this comment.
Kind regard,
Tibono

[MikeB]

CEGT have published their updated lists now, and have both Stockfish and Fat Fritz 2 on their "Best Versions" list. So they are treating them as separate entities as well.

http://www.cegt.net/40_40%20Rating%20Li ... liste.html

Well them , you are both being misleading in your ratings. Two wrongs don't make a right. The code is is in excess 99.9% Stockfish, with the only different being the Net, Which is like having a different evaluate function.

My question is, is there an undisclosed conflict of interest. Did everyone at CCRL pay for their version of Stockfish-FF2 ? If you received a gratuitous copy, of FF2, then CCRL waas basically bribed to show it as separate. Be careful how you answer, the truth always has a way of coming out.

If anyone of you received a copy of FF2 without paying for you, CCRL is lacking independence.

As a frequent Talkchess visitor (non-programmer, chess patzer yet addicted amateur, like most of us reading here, sorry no proof or checksums on this statement provided) I find the tone of this conversation has evolved from a rightfully questioning, fact checking, sceptical base, to revealing a motivation that seems more partisan and quite frankly toxic than the supposed target Chessbase/FF2. To basically accuse the hosts/administrators of various invaluable and long run rating lists of fraud because they may have to received free samples of the products they test is not funny or entertaining any more. I suggest the accuser checksums their eyesight and sees what progress for instance the various Komodo versions have made in said lists. As a keen 'puter' chess follower, dating back to Chess Genius, Super System III and Mephisto and Novag Super Constellation, as well as a hat doffer to the Stockfish creators and my personal favourite Komodo duo, want to see every possible artificial chess entity on the lists and am thankful to the blood sweat and nerdism that is put into these lists. My guess is that there are a lot of readers here of similar thinking. Cheers. 1. a3. Yep: that bad.

It is not funny and they should be doing the right thing. Due to my background as an auditor ,I am a professional skeptic, when something just doesn't add up, you have to ask questions.



Shashin and SugaR have far more changes to Stockfish than FF2. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation why FF2 should be treated differently than Shashin and Sugar. It doesn't add up, so I'm asking the question. As , FYI, I go further back in computer chess than you do and when I see a wrong I am not going to be quiet. Whether if FF2 is legal, I'm not a lawyer. But you don't have to be a lawyer to know this whole setup stinks to high heavens. And now you have two rating lists, that are calling a nearly 100% clone a different engine for rating purposes - an engine that has profit motive - you have to ask questions, Why ? To me , they appear to be in bed in together and if you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. This is an outrage. I'm not really interested in people opinions who choose to stick their head in the sand because they are simply thankful. You are simply a taker - what have you contributed to the computer chess community. Meanwhile there are hundreds of developers who contributed to SF and now see Chessbase SF making a buck on the work they did. Chessbase is not some nickel and dime enterprise - they do NOT deserve to financially benefit off the work of others who contributed thousands and thousands of of hours of work pro bono. Quite honestly , if you cannot see something is inherently wrong. I'm not saying legally wrong , I am saying common sense wrong with what transpired the last week or so - I cannot help you. I will continue to voice my opinion and if you or others do not like it, I am fine with you blocking me - there is "foe" button, just make me your "foe" and you will never see another one of my posts. I am good with that. Don't bother responding , I have marked you a "foe"

[Guenther]

CEGT have published their updated lists now, and have both Stockfish and Fat Fritz 2 on their "Best Versions" list. So they are treating them as separate entities as well.

http://www.cegt.net/40_40%20Rating%20Li ... liste.html

Well them , you are both being misleading in your ratings. Two wrongs don't make a right. The code is is in excess 99.9% Stockfish, with the only different being the Net, Which is like having a different evaluate function.

My question is, is there an undisclosed conflict of interest. Did everyone at CCRL pay for their version of Stockfish-FF2 ? If you received a gratuitous copy, of FF2, then CCRL waas basically bribed to show it as separate. Be careful how you answer, the truth always has a way of coming out.

If anyone of you received a copy of FF2 without paying for you, CCRL is lacking independence.

As a frequent Talkchess visitor (non-programmer, chess patzer yet addicted amateur, like most of us reading here, sorry no proof or checksums on this statement provided) I find the tone of this conversation has evolved from a rightfully questioning, fact checking, sceptical base, to revealing a motivation that seems more partisan and quite frankly toxic than the supposed target Chessbase/FF2. To basically accuse the hosts/administrators of various invaluable and long run rating lists of fraud because they may have to received free samples of the products they test is not funny or entertaining any more. I suggest the accuser checksums their eyesight and sees what progress for instance the various Komodo versions have made in said lists. As a keen 'puter' chess follower, dating back to Chess Genius, Super System III and Mephisto and Novag Super Constellation, as well as a hat doffer to the Stockfish creators and my personal favourite Komodo duo, want to see every possible artificial chess entity on the lists and am thankful to the blood sweat and nerdism that is put into these lists. My guess is that there are a lot of readers here of similar thinking. Cheers. 1. a3. Yep: that bad.

If you had been around 20 years plus you would realize that this also happened already to SSDF long ago,
also not w/o reasoning and out of the blue.
I don't think the question about how close the relationship to a certain company is, is per se 'evil', especially
how things developed over the last years.

I never understood at all why the brand has to be listed instead of the real program? I had no problem to list the real
program in my chronology. The real Fritz had just one author and that was Frans Morsch!
All later Fritz after F.M. were simply different programs, with a CB stamp on it.
Nothing would have prevented people to name the program first and the branding (as version) in brackets behind.

So here there is Rybka 4.x (F16), Ginkgo (F17) the rest is not listed here due to non-originality or simply being LC0/SF2.

Older Fritz with Frans Morsch are just not listed because CB stubbornly refused for too long to support a free chess protocol
until their own protocol died like a long overdue brontosaurus years ago.

[Gabor Szots]

As far as I can see, the debate here is about how much the evaluation (the net) of FF2 differs from that of SF. Can it be measured? Can you say that Shashchess's/SugaR's evaluation is so much different from SF evaluation that they deserve an own family? While FF2's evaluation is so close to that of SF that it does not deserve a different family?

Who will draw the line? Is there someone here who can confidently draw the line? I doubt very much. I remember the debates over Rybka and Ippolito, they have not been decided up till now, with experts on both sides.

[MikeB]

As far as I can see, the debate here is about how much the evaluation (the net) of FF2 differs from that of SF. Can it be measured? Can you say that Shashchess's/SugaR's evaluation is so much different from SF evaluation that they deserve an own family? While FF2's evaluation is so close to that of SF that it does not deserve a different family?

Who will draw the line? Is there someone here who can confidently draw the line? I doubt very much. I remember the debates over Rybka and Ippolito, they have not been decided up till now, with experts on both sides.

Actually, that is not the debate. A clone is a clone, Chessbase announced FF2 as a clone and the source released confirm it was nearly a 100% clone of Stockfish with just handful of code changes to change name and to handle the larger net. Case closed. Clones not getting get separate ratings has been accepted for the most part for a long time. I believe that practice is sound and should be continued.

It is my belief that if an individual had done what Chessbase had done, that individual would have been ostracized from the computer chess community and perhaps the rating would never have been listed period, or perhaps, best case as a SF engine.

So one has to ask, why does Chessbase get a pass on this when no single individual would ever get such a pass. And I think we know why.

[hgm]

Just out of curiosity:

Is the rating improvement of Stockfish-dev compared to Stockfish 12 only caused by improvement of its NNUE net, or does it come from search enhancements? If the latter, wouldn't using the FF2 net with the Stockfish-dev not give Fat Fritz the same improvement?