TalkChess.com

I really don't want to have anything to do with such negativity, but all i am asking is, if there is some convincing proof or argument, that sf is not being conspired against, not by chessbasse, not by komodo not by tcec and not by itself (for monetry gains), or others?

a huge nuisance poster keeps posting this everywhere, and the only ways to fight it are 1).getting him banned and all his accoumts together with it, or 2).Some clear evidence that he is wrong so that we can ignore it totally.

Question, since SF is free, could it be that the money makers would do anything when it comes to money?

I personally think not. I would never suspect Martin to be partner to this.

Has there ever been a thread on this before?
I wouldn't think so, as sf always won, didn't it?

There are other better experts in Stockfish than me, but I know a few weaknesses of Stockfish, like too much pruning and the lack of some basic knowledge. The first is a little bad at least because of the second. When one see how Komodo plays a lot of positions, I can say I'm pretty sure what is happening; more knowledge is needed. No need to think strange thinks.

I can say this with my own experience on Andscacs. I see very often bad played games, later improved by adding knowledge. I have no doubts that is like this on the grand picture of Stockfish. The code is simply too optimized mostly for search.

Would you say it is possible that Komodo is making new strides in computer chess, and IS doing well in applying knowledge?

(After all, how else are near perfect games meant to be won, if not by grinding out minute advantages and converting them into victory? Would Morphy himself have done it any quicker?)

TCEC conspiring to promote a commercial engine? Sorry, but that sounds ridiculous

SF is simply lacking in chess knowledge. K has much more of it plugged into it and it shows in the long run. Except in very cramped positions, where it resorts to ye olde piece shuffling, I find K always plays with a purpose. SF usually does the same.. just that sometimes it hasn't got a clue in the world about what's going on.

I didn't look at the code, but I don't think it's the over-pruning. My gut feeling is that the eval lacks some strategic elements.

Independent tests also show K slightly better than SF.

I would be utterly shocked if Mark and Larry were rolling in the dough from Komodo sales.

The chance of them having enough money for a substantial bribe is approximately zero.

I think that both of them have enough integrity not to offer a bribe, and I would be truly shocked if either of them did that.

So now let's consider the bigger money players like ChessBase and ChessAssistant and finally ChessMaster.

They have no motive to promote K which competes with them.

Simple logic tells you that no bribe is involved.

S.Taylor wrote:Has there ever been a thread on this before?

ARB posted here for awhile, and then he didn't. I suspect he was banned.

I think having GM Larry Kaufman on their team is enough to explain Komodo's superior evaluation.

I think that the whole idea that TCEC is impartial is preposterous.

Graham Banks wrote:I think that the whole idea that TCEC is impartial is preposterous.

Did you mean that or did you just miswrite?

Dirt wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:I think that the whole idea that TCEC is impartial is preposterous.

Did you mean that or did you just miswrite?

I meant that the suggestion of impartiality is ridiculous. Is that not what I said?

Graham.

Graham Banks wrote:

Dirt wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:I think that the whole idea that TCEC is impartial is preposterous.

Did you mean that or did you just miswrite?

I meant that the suggestion of impartiality is ridiculous. Is that not what I said?

Graham.

Yes, that's what you said.

IMPARTIAL. : not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally.

So if they are not impartial they must be biased. Which way do you think they are biased?