We've made an internal poll among the members of the CEGT again
with the result that, from now on, the engine Houdini will be included
in our lists.
Therefore i've made an additional update of the blitz-list today,
details:
mwyoung wrote:...and Houdini can openly be talked about on The Rybka Forum...
I'm afraid not. As has been pointed out at other forums, mention of CEGT has alread been removed from Rybka's home page. Also the forum policy has already been adapted: whenceforth only the CCRL is in control of the decision what is a "clone" and what is not.
It confirms what has been said before: for Rybka and Chessbase the CCRL - and previously the CEGT - rating lists are instrumental in defining engines as "clones" without providing any factual proof or starting any legal action. And now that the CEGT "instrument" is no longer useful, it is instantly discarded.
mwyoung wrote:...and Houdini can openly be talked about on The Rybka Forum...
I'm afraid not. As has been pointed out at other forums, mention of CEGT has alread been removed from Rybka's home page. Also the forum policy has already been adapted: whenceforth only the CCRL is in control of the decision what is a "clone" and what is not.
It confirms what has been said before: for Rybka and Chessbase the CCRL - and previously the CEGT - rating lists are instrumental in defining engines as "clones" without providing any factual proof or starting any legal action. And now that the CEGT "instrument" is no longer useful, it is instantly discarded.
Robert
It is ok Robert. You have already won. I told you, you would win this fight over the board, and you have.
Everyone can see what is going on now. Rybka, ChessBase and CCRL can no longer hide using some false moral outrage to justify their actions.
mwyoung wrote:...and Houdini can openly be talked about on The Rybka Forum...
I'm afraid not. As has been pointed out at other forums, mention of CEGT has alread been removed from Rybka's home page. Also the forum policy has already been adapted: whenceforth only the CCRL is in control of the decision what is a "clone" and what is not.
It confirms what has been said before: for Rybka and Chessbase the CCRL - and previously the CEGT - rating lists are instrumental in defining engines as "clones" without providing any factual proof or starting any legal action. And now that the CEGT "instrument" is no longer useful, it is instantly discarded.
Robert
Hello Robert,
Interesting.
Do you - or anyone else - have a snapshot of that same page before the latest change? I would like to see it for myself.
This is drama. So CEGT is no longer a professional testing organisation?
Wow.
I am going to have to tell all my friends to avoid your engine like the plague. Or risk not being perceived as serious and professional.
Roger Brown wrote:This is drama. So CEGT is no longer a professional testing organisation?
AFAIK english, professional means "engaged in an activity as a paid occupation". So the actual statement on Rybka website seams to be nothing but an official confession by Felix Kling that members of CCRL get some form of material compensation for their work...
It confirms in the same time that claims about CCRL being an amateur organization are just pure BS.
mwyoung wrote:...and Houdini can openly be talked about on The Rybka Forum...
I'm afraid not. As has been pointed out at other forums, mention of CEGT has alread been removed from Rybka's home page. Also the forum policy has already been adapted: whenceforth only the CCRL is in control of the decision what is a "clone" and what is not.
It confirms what has been said before: for Rybka and Chessbase the CCRL - and previously the CEGT - rating lists are instrumental in defining engines as "clones" without providing any factual proof or starting any legal action. And now that the CEGT "instrument" is no longer useful, it is instantly discarded.
Robert
Hello Robert,
Interesting.
Do you - or anyone else - have a snapshot of that same page before the latest change? I would like to see it for myself.
This is drama. So CEGT is no longer a professional testing organisation?
Wow.
I am going to have to tell all my friends to avoid your engine like the plague. Or risk not being perceived as serious and professional.
It is to laugh.
Later.
The funniest thing I read. Reading the Rybka forum website is were Mr. Banks is begging Vas to say something in defense of Rybka, and CCRL, but Vas says nothing. Cutting off Mr. Banks at the KNEES. What a fool! Showing the partnership they have, or why else is Mr. Banks begging for support and a statement from Vas. IMO
mwyoung wrote:Reading the Rybka forum website is were Mr. Banks is begging Vas to say something in defense of Rybka, and CCRL, but Vas says nothing. Cutting off Mr. Banks at the KNEES. What a fool! Showing the partnership they have, or why else is Mr. Banks begging for support and a statement from Vas. IMO
Link please so that people can read it for themselves.
mwyoung wrote:Reading the Rybka forum website is were Mr. Banks is begging Vas to say something in defense of Rybka, and CCRL, but Vas says nothing. Cutting off Mr. Banks at the KNEES. What a fool! Showing the partnership they have, or why else is Mr. Banks begging for support and a statement from Vas. IMO
Link please so that people can read it for themselves.
I am not going to hunt for it.
Just tell us now. Did you ask for somekind of statement on the rybka forum from Vas? I know I was not the only one to read it. When I saw it I was ROFL.
Roger Brown wrote:This is drama. So CEGT is no longer a professional testing organisation?
AFAIK english, professional means "engaged in an activity as a paid occupation". So the actual statement on Rybka website seams to be nothing but an official confession by Felix Kling that members of CCRL get some form of material compensation for their work...
It confirms in the same time that claims about CCRL being an amateur organization are just pure BS.
Hello Milos,
C'mon, you are way better than that!
Context please.
Professional here does not seem to mean paid but serves as a jab meaning not well done, not done to exacting standards, lacking rigour, a poor job etc.
It is an interesting enough development without trying to ride that train through the eye of the needle.
Fat Chance......
Showing the partnership they have, or why else is Mr. Banks begging for support and a statement from Vas. IMO
