ICGA's 2015 World Computer Chess Championship/Events

[velmarin]

One could say wait until Stockfish 7, Houdini 5 or Gull 4 is released...THEN we'll know who the real champ is.

ThinkingALot reported that the Gull project was closed.

[daylen]

the stockfish.org site still claimed "The strongest chess engine in the world."

I don't remember was ever written like this. I remember was written "among the strongest", I am not the webmaster and I seldom look at the site, but I fully trust that Daylen is very fair and correct.

Fortunately, we do not have to remember, since we have the marvelous wayback machine to do that for us. For example:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141230053 ... chess.org/

and:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141009214 ... chess.org/

For the period from September 2014 (when Komodo 8 was released and hit the top of most rating lists) through December when Komodo beat Stockfish in the TCEC (and even today) it clear stated "The strongest chess engine in the world." Neither fair nor correct for those time periods.

You complain about us linking, accurately, to a rating list we have done well on (and we swiftly have remove links that are no longer true), while your website says untrue things for months at a time. I will note, we never once complained about your site's inaccuracies until you attacked our site. I am not our site's webmaster, but I do take responsibility for what it posted there, and I will continue trying to keep it as accurate as the data I have available allows me.

Hi Mark, I maintain the Stockfish web site. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This was not a deliberate attempt to misrepresent things on my part. I think I changed it to “number one” when we did hit number one a while back, and out of laziness (I don’t keep up with the lists) I never bothered to change it. To prevent this from happening again, I just updated the site to say "one of the strongest," which I'm sure will stand the test of time.

[neelbasant]

My original post was:


ICGA is not an ordinary organization.

[mcostalba]

In the last few post you suddenly started using apologetic language!

Very different from the tone of your earlier posts which described the Komodo team as pathetic and flat earthers.

So would you now also describe these earlier posts as needlessly offensive?

You have clearly some issue with me, so I know that whatever I say will be unfairly turned on and misunderstood by you. Moreover you are one of the worst cleric here on talkchess and it is almost impossible to discuss with you on rational terms.

But, although I know is useless, I will answer your silly post saying that I confirm any and all the words of my previous posts content: I still believe that switching from CEGT 20 to CEGT 120 has been pathetic and pity. I was not aware of our site to post that SF is the strongest in the world, once I knew I asked Daylen to change that, and he kindly accepted, because I believe those lines, apart from being not correct at the time it was published (and here Mark is right) could only foster misunderstandings and could damage commercial engines sells and because we are not a commercial entity we really don't want and don't need this.


P.S: Even your signature sentence

Code: Select all

Ideas=science. Simplification=engineering.
Without ideas there is nothing to simplify.

reveals that you are many centuries behind and a real cleric. You have still an Aristotelian vision of the world although it is at least 5 centuries that is accepted that science = experiment = measure. Five centuries ago someone said "science is the daughter of experience" and was almost imprisoned for this....after 5 centuries clerics are still among us, with the whips in their hands. Indeed still today many people (including academics) have only a superficial understanding of what science is, and once you dig a little bit deeper beyond their mechanical parroting of what they have read in books, you understand that they still do not grasp the deep concepts above which modern world was built. This makes me further realize what big achievement did the fathers of our modern science when they pushed to introduce, at risk of their lives, the new concept of science to people that was even not able to parroting, because what they were saying at the time was not written in any book.

[Michel]

You have clearly some issue with me,

I have no issues whatsoever with you. I simply detest the use of insults as a means of conversation. So whenever this happens I draw attention to it. You are simply one of the worst offenders on this front.

P.S: Even your signature sentence

Code:
Ideas=science. Simplification=engineering.
Without ideas there is nothing to simplify.


reveals that you are many centuries behind and a real cleric. You have still an Aristotelian vision of the world although it is at least 5 centuries that is accepted that science = experiment = measure. Five centuries ago someone said "science is the daughter of experience" and was almost imprisoned for this....after 5 centuries clerics are still among us, with the whips in their hands. Indeed still today many people (including academics) have only a superficial understanding of what science is, and once you dig a little bit deeper beyond their mechanical parroting of what they have read in books, you understand that they still do not grasp the deep concepts above which modern world was built. This makes me further realize what big achievement did the fathers of our modern science when they pushed to introduce, at risk of their lives, the new concept of science to people that was even not able to parroting, because what they were saying at the time was not written in any book.

You are obviously confusing things here. My signature is a tautology. You cannot simplify something that isn't there.

As to your rambling diatribe. It is clear that you have no idea whatsoever about how science works. You clearly believe that science should be done by an army of monkeys doing random experiments in the hope that something good will come out of it. If that were true we would still be in the stone age

No the scientific method consists of

Theory->Prediction->Experiment->Refine theory

and repeat.

The nice thing is that this process often converges so that the theory offers better and better predictions about reality.

In order to make more informed posts in the future you could start reading here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[Adam Hair]

I still believe that switching from CEGT 20 to CEGT 120 has been pathetic and pity. I was not aware of our site to post that SF is the strongest in the world, once I knew I asked Daylen to change that, and he kindly accepted, because I believe those lines, apart from being not correct at the time it was published (and here Mark is right) could only foster misunderstandings and could damage commercial engines sells and because we are not a commercial entity we really don't want and don't need this.

So, you do not believe that the following was an intemperate post, even after Mark's explanation:

After they have pathetically changed the link of their site http://komodochess.com/ to point to the only rating list in which Komodo is still #1 (because SF 6 still has not been tested there!) I expect anything out of them, even that Komodo participates icga and gives up TCEC (like Hiarcs did).

I have respect for Komodo people, but I starting to see they are steering to desperate (and, sorry to say, quite pity) actions. They are commercial, they need to get money out of this Komodo thing, I understand this, nevertheless....

Obviously, the CEGT link is directed towards people who do not follow computer chess closely. Since Komodo is a commercial endeavor, it makes no sense for them to inform people that there is a free engine that is as strong or stronger than Komodo. And when SF 6 appears at the top of the CEGT 120 list, they will need to remove the link. None of it is pathetic, not from a business aspect.

[mcostalba]

Theory->Prediction->Experiment->Refine theory

There is no theory before experiment in real world (physics, astronomy, biology, anything that you can pick), apart from very rare cases theoreticians always follows experimenters, the latter find something strange and unusual (many times by chance) and the firsts build or refine a theory out of it. Has always been like this and is still today like this, I could report hundreds of cases.

I'm happy we live in 21 century, I would have been scared to find someone like you at medieval ages: I would have been probably put on flames.

[mcostalba]

So, you do not believe that the following was an intemperate post, even after Mark's explanation:

No, sorry, but I will not abjure

Doing something that makes business sense does not prevent this action to be judged good or bad or nice or pity. If you mean I understand why they did it, then the answer is yes, of course I understand, I have even done some prediction following business logic (to partecipate icga, to give up TCEC), but my comment on the action stands as is.

[Michel]

There is no theory before experiment in real world (physics, astronomy, biology, anything that you can pick),

Think about nuclear energy. It was predicted by Einstein on purely theoretical grounds.

apart from very rare cases theoreticians always follows experimenters, the latter find something strange and unusual (many times by chance)

"Unusual and strange" means most of the time a small unpredicted deviation from an existing theory. So this is fully consistent with what I wrote.

[Adam Hair]

Okay