We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Guenther
Posts: 3796
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:33 am
Location: Regensburg, Germany
Full name: Guenther Simon
Contact:

Re: We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

Post by Guenther » Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:35 pm

noobpwnftw wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:22 pm
I don't see how it is a beneficial thing to do to make a gigantic list of entries that are irrelevant.

So here is the thing:

If you test every random SF clone that people may release, how is that different from just testing every SFdev commit like NCM? Do you do that to your "general" rating lists? I don't think so.

Now, I also have a plenty of experiments of different NNUE arch, size and they vary in performance, in fact, I probably explored more architecture variants before some other guy re-invented them, do you consider that I would be offering an "edge" to the independent testers if I just go by nicknaming all my nets and let people play around it all? I don't think so either.

So I'm quite mystified on what the standards being for them in technical terms other than having a skill set involving anus licking.
Most testers are simply betraying themselves by saying they are testers not judges.
Actually they all judge too! But it seems they cannot accept this truth themselves.

Otherwise all rating lists would be full of Raubfish, JudasPro, Salt, Orca and whatever, but they are not!
So they judged and their judgement led them to decisions, which are/were doubtful or plain stupid sometimes, that's it.

To be fair, there are also 'so called' wannabe rating lists, which really don't 'judge at all', but their results are disgusting of course.
https://chessengines.blogspot.com/2021/ ... 10221.html
(you can guess by the names what was cloned or not)
https://rwbc-chess.de
HGM@'chessqueen' 2018-present, aka: 'George' 2013-2016, 'pichy' 2006-2013, 'Jorge Pichard' 2000-2006 (old forum) wrote: http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 79#p789713

the_real_greco
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:55 am
Full name: Andy!

Re: We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

Post by the_real_greco » Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:06 pm

noobpwnftw wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:22 pm
I don't see how it is a beneficial thing to do to make a gigantic list of entries that are irrelevant.

...

So I'm quite mystified on what the standards being for them in technical terms other than having a skill set involving anus licking.
Ratings lists answer the question, "How strong is X engine relative to other engines?"

People were asking that question about Fat Fritz. Very few people are asking that about each Stockfish commit. Nobody is asking that about your net iterations.

You're looking for inclusion standards in technical terms, but those don't need to exist.

noobpwnftw
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:10 pm

Re: We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

Post by noobpwnftw » Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:24 pm

That I don't disagree, but if it simply boils down to having "demands", then it is no better than people selling street drugs(some designer ones are even legal).

the_real_greco
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:55 am
Full name: Andy!

Re: We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

Post by the_real_greco » Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:57 pm

noobpwnftw wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:24 pm
That I don't disagree, but if it simply boils down to having "demands", then it is no better than people selling street drugs(some designer ones are even legal).
I'm confused about this. More supply arising due to increased demands makes sense, but why the street drugs exactly? Are you arguing that having engines on these ratings lists encourages cloning?

I'm sure that right now, Silver and ChessBase would prefer that FF2 not be on the CCRL or Pohl's. That was never their goal, and now it's just hurting them.

Ras
Posts: 1745
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:19 pm
Full name: Rasmus Althoff
Contact:

Re: We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

Post by Ras » Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:50 pm

the_real_greco wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:57 pm
I'm sure that right now, Silver and ChessBase would prefer that FF2 not be on the CCRL or Pohl's. That was never their goal, and now it's just hurting them.
Sure it does - because it exposes their lie that FF2 offers anything over Stockfish.
Rasmus Althoff
https://www.ct800.net

User avatar
flok
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:19 am
Full name: Folkert van Heusden
Contact:

Re: We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

Post by flok » Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:02 pm

Ras wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:50 pm
the_real_greco wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:57 pm
I'm sure that right now, Silver and ChessBase would prefer that FF2 not be on the CCRL or Pohl's. That was never their goal, and now it's just hurting them.
Sure it does - because it exposes their lie that FF2 offers anything over Stockfish.
I shows that is actually weaker. So who cares?
www.vanheusden.com: Micah / Embla / PuppetMaster / DeepBrutePos / Pos / Feeks

Ras
Posts: 1745
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:19 pm
Full name: Rasmus Althoff
Contact:

Re: We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

Post by Ras » Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:07 pm

flok wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:02 pm
I shows that is actually weaker. So who cares?
Potential customers who may then be less inclined to shell out a 100 EUR for nothing?
Rasmus Althoff
https://www.ct800.net

cpeters
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2021 6:44 pm
Full name: Christian Petersen

Re: We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

Post by cpeters » Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:14 pm

pohl4711 wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:50 pm
AndrewGrant wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am
Well the answer to that is if its a commercial engine, the list would have to buy a copy if they care to test it. I imagine all authors have happily given copies to all the testers on release in the past; I would break that tradition.
Only exception was Fat Fritz 2, I got a free testversion from Albert Silver.
He had to give it to you in advance for the concerted action - otherwise you couldn't have filled your rating list with data supporting the story/narrative that FatFritz2 is the new number one at release date (before that publishing test results were forbidden). There would have been simply no story.

Fine by me. Your hobby /electricity bills.

User avatar
flok
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:19 am
Full name: Folkert van Heusden
Contact:

Re: We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

Post by flok » Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:18 pm

Ras wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:07 pm
flok wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:02 pm
I shows that is actually weaker. So who cares?
Potential customers who may then be less inclined to shell out a 100 EUR for nothing?
I somewhat doubt that most buyers will google for rating lists before they buy something like Fritz. If they know about their existence at all.
www.vanheusden.com: Micah / Embla / PuppetMaster / DeepBrutePos / Pos / Feeks

Ras
Posts: 1745
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:19 pm
Full name: Rasmus Althoff
Contact:

Re: We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

Post by Ras » Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:26 pm

flok wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:18 pm
I somewhat doubt that most buyers will google for rating lists before they buy something like Fritz.
They don't need to because the news has already been spreading rapidly. GM Hikaru has a video on YT, stuff is going hot on Reddit, and in any chess forum, it's sufficient if one poster knows about that. It's going viral, and having an actual source prevents Chessbase from dismissing it as "fake news".
Rasmus Althoff
https://www.ct800.net

Post Reply