Note, that I'm perfectly fine with Houdini being excluded from the list, the testers should only test what they want, and there shouldn't be any entity that should be forcibly tested.Lars Sandin wrote:Some key question, regarding our way of testing, that actually are quite simple and which should take less than a minute to answer to. He has every right to ignore answering some type of questions, and I then have to respect his sudden silence as a way of showing us that he isn’t interested in seeing his program in our list. It’s a pity really, but his own free choice.
What I'm not okay with is the reason for exclusion, specifically, stating that you want to test it, but won't.
The public is being damaged only because Robert Houdart seems terrible at public relations, but the stated reason isn't really different from "Houdini isn't being tested because its author came to my house and kicked my dog" - Houdini is a different entity from its author.
No offense but it sounds the reason Houdini isn't being tested is because of some kind of resentment towards the author of the software for completely ignoring your list.
But I don't give a damn about what Houdart thinks or about whether he cares or not if his engine is tested, the engine is not tested for the author of it, it is tested for the benefit of the computer chess community as a whole, to know how the engine compares with other ones on the list, because other rating lists are creating distortion by applying outdated rules that exclude chess entities that could be topping them, and we'll just never know because new testers are forced to comply with these rules.
If the SSDF is the only rating list that is doing it right, it is very important that they don't exclude those programs for similar reasons.
Why does the SSDF do the testing that they do? Is it for themselves, or is it for the users that read the list? I thought it was for the users, otherwise the list would be private and only the testers would know the results.
I'm fully capable of answering any question related to Houdini, its Tactical mode that replaces some normal cores, the Defaul Contempt setting, or any other question you might have. I'm not the only one and other people could provide better answers, but you don't need the author at all.
As the bottom line, I want to know what would you do if Robert Houdart died? Would all the chances of Houdini being tested die with him? Because it'd be impossible to answer your questions in that state.
Otherwise, just assume he died, or disappeared from the face of earth and is unable to answer, the reasons for not answering doesn't matter, what should matter is your questions being answered. In the absense of the author, you ask someone else. You can't force the author to care but many people already care and they can answer those questions.