i'm glad houdini is being tested...not sure why we need the 'controversial' label. that seems awfully subjective compared to the others. if a site wants to pride itself on being objective i'd suggest at very most nothing more than an addendum somewhere. labeling like this is a bit silly.
How do you prove that a closed-source engine does or does not violate the rules, unless the author releases the source?
Also, how can you prove an open-source engine does or does not violate the rules by being a clone/whatever of a closed-source engine, unless the author of the closed-source engine reveals the source?
This production is being brought to you by Rybka: "The engine made from scratch.™"
I think it is good that CCRL now tests unique engines.It is for the good of CCRL that it does and so therefore for the general population.Don't get caught up in the political aspects of certain engines, one day a squeaky clean engine will come along and be #1 and you will gladly test it.But in the mean time you still have to keep testers and the computer chess enthusiasts on board.
Cubeman wrote:I think it is good that CCRL now tests unique engines.It is for the good of CCRL that it does and so therefore for the general population.Don't get caught up in the political aspects of certain engines, one day a squeaky clean engine will come along and be #1 and you will gladly test it.But in the mean time you still have to keep testers and the computer chess enthusiasts on board.
It amazes me, not pointing at any individual, how easily people are prepared to let common decency and civilization go, for a short moment of possessing something known as the best or so. Some new top chess programmers, who came out of the blue, put hard working original authors out of business.
We are on the highway back to medieval savagery.