Open Source Blitz Rating List: Pepito 1.59, IvanHoe 999946h

[lucasart]

anyway, we could go on and argue as much as we want but the fact remains that CCRL is non democratic, and is unwilling to change it. IvanHoe will not be tested, and one the one hand Adam tells me that anyone in CCRL can test anything, on the other hand he says he who dares test IvanHoe will never be accepted in CCRL...
I'm not going to go on about the commercial interests that Norman is talking about, because I don;t believe that's true. But I will tell you guys this: what do you prefer to support
1/ proprietary (closed source) and commercial software ?
2/ open source and community driven software ?
your words may say what they want but your actions repeatedly say 1/
and as an engine developper, all I can tell you is that w/o open source there would be no chess engines today even playing at 2500 elo. Without the Crafty's or the Fruit's of the past and the StockFish and IvanHoe of the present and countless others, there would be nothing. Chess algorithm have always been invented by a community of people developping free/open source software, and those trying to embed these ideas in closed source commercial software have never made any contribution to the community by doing so.
I know you're not programmers, but I do hope you understand what open source is about, and perhaps it will help you decide who you want to support between:
1/ programs like Rybka, where the code is a plagiarism exercise of Fruit and Crafty, and the author organised a war of falsehood and propaganda to smear open source software in the interest of staying on the top of all rating lists...
2/ open source programs, taking ideas and code from other other open source programs (which is perfectly fine and that's the reason why open source software exists) and *in return* making a contribution to the community by published their modified/improved chess algorithms

[Adam Hair]

anyway, we could go on and argue as much as we want but the fact remains that CCRL is non democratic, and is unwilling to change it. IvanHoe will not be tested, and one the one hand Adam tells me that anyone in CCRL can test anything, on the other hand he says he who dares test IvanHoe will never be accepted in CCRL...
I'm not going to go on about the commercial interests that Norman is talking about, because I don;t believe that's true. But I will tell you guys this: what do you prefer to support
1/ proprietary (closed source) and commercial software ?
2/ open source and community driven software ?
your words may say what they want but your actions repeatedly say 1/
and as an engine developper, all I can tell you is that w/o open source there would be no chess engines today even playing at 2500 elo. Without the Crafty's or the Fruit's of the past and the StockFish and IvanHoe of the present and countless others, there would be nothing. Chess algorithm have always been invented by a community of people developping free/open source software, and those trying to embed these ideas in closed source commercial software have never made any contribution to the community by doing so.
I know you're not programmers, but I do hope you understand what open source is about, and perhaps it will help you decide who you want to support between:
1/ programs like Rybka, where the code is a plagiarism exercise of Fruit and Crafty, and the author organised a war of falsehood and propaganda to smear open source software in the interest of staying on the top of all rating lists...
2/ open source programs, taking ideas and code from other other open source programs (which is perfectly fine and that's the reason why open source software exists) and *in return* making a contribution to the community by published their modified/improved chess algorithms

Lucas, it has always been all engines. More specifically, all authors. I am not sure what you are referencing in regards to non democratic. If it is about what we test, then it is very democratic. Take a look. Ask some other authors. We test every author's engine, or at least try very hard to do that.

If you are referring to IvanHoe not being tested, I am sorry that you and I feel differently. Obviously, the lack of authors does not bother you. That's your choice. Just remember that every open source program but one have authors associated with them. And they (or as many as we have been able to) have been supported by the CCRL.

[Adam Hair]

Let's be honest here. Why are we even testing engines? #1 by a wide margin is because we want to. In some ways it is foolish, given the electric bills we have to pay. But we enjoy doing it. #2 we are appreciative of every author who shares his (and hopefully her, at some point) work with everyone.

sorry i don't believe your motives are pure as the driven snow...
you have huge electric bills?


sorry i also run several computers day and night....also w/ extra costs.
(and electricity costs quite a bit more here in Europe than the US, take it from somebody who has spent many years on both sides of the Atlantic).

you're no martyr Adam...
your testing efforts also involve significant recognition and prestige, (not to mention free copies and a close relationship with authors like Vas, etc.)

Motives pure as the driven snow? I think you misunderstand reason #1. We are doing something that we want to do, for our own satisfaction. The #1 reason why I am testing engines is because that is what I want to do, not for anybody else. #2 involves other people, but the top reason is that I do it for myself.

Huge electric bills? I did not say huge. But others would definitely think it foolish that I waste electricity conducting engine-engine matches.

I do not think that a supposed martyr would state that his #1 reason for doing something is that he is doing it for himself. Of course, your next post to me will take me to task for being selfish for testing for myself.

As far as significant recognition and prestige goes, I have somehow missed the boat on that.

Free copies? Yeah, there are some available. As I am an avowed supporter of amateur authors, I do not care very much about free copies.

Close relationship to Vas? Do you not remember some of my posts? I have not acted as if I am in the group of his friends. In fact, I have never exchanged a single word with him, and I doubt very much he knows who I am. In fact, other than Onno Garms and Gian-Carlo Pascutto posting in my similarity thread, the only commercial author I have corresponded with at all is Don Dailey. And the majority of that correspondence was about the similarity tester.

[geots]

Finished testing IvanHoe. So its #1 open source place is confirmed, with a margin of 20 elo

Code: Select all

Rank Name                  Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws 
   1 IvanHoe 999946h      3192   45   43   200   79%  2956   24% 
   2 Stockfish 2.2.1      3172   42   40   250   80%  2907   21% 
   3 Protector 1.4        2930   34   33   300   53%  2913   24% 
   4 Umko 1.2             2878   29   29   400   53%  2865   27% 
   5 Toga 1.4.1           2844   28   28   450   53%  2826   23% 
   6 Daydreamer 1.75      2736   29   29   350   56%  2691   29% 
   7 Fruit 2.1            2700   28   28   400   46%  2725   25% 
   8 Crafty 23.4          2693   29   29   400   36%  2814   24% 
   9 GNU Chess 5.07.173b  2656   30   30   350   44%  2702   25% 
  10 Pepito 1.59          2592   35   35   250   42%  2652   24% 
  11 Greko 9.0            2473   38   40   250   21%  2706   18% 

Lucas,

I am sincerely not trying to be a critic, but I have to ask something. As a statistician, how can you make this statement, based on your testing?

Come on now, you are suppose to be chiding the rest of us if we make statements like that

Just joking around,

Adam

this appears to simply be an effort to deflect critcism to Lucas?

that's sad...
unfortunately, you CCRL testers make much more exaggerated claims:

Only problem is remember KLO's compiles are approx. 30 to 70 elo weaker than PPs in Windows,

no, sorry CCRL...
i'm quite sure that Frank Q. ran 1400 games comparing the two compiles and found them extremely close...
how many games did George run?

.

[Adam Hair]

Finished testing IvanHoe. So its #1 open source place is confirmed, with a margin of 20 elo

Code: Select all

Rank Name                  Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws 
   1 IvanHoe 999946h      3192   45   43   200   79%  2956   24% 
   2 Stockfish 2.2.1      3172   42   40   250   80%  2907   21% 
   3 Protector 1.4        2930   34   33   300   53%  2913   24% 
   4 Umko 1.2             2878   29   29   400   53%  2865   27% 
   5 Toga 1.4.1           2844   28   28   450   53%  2826   23% 
   6 Daydreamer 1.75      2736   29   29   350   56%  2691   29% 
   7 Fruit 2.1            2700   28   28   400   46%  2725   25% 
   8 Crafty 23.4          2693   29   29   400   36%  2814   24% 
   9 GNU Chess 5.07.173b  2656   30   30   350   44%  2702   25% 
  10 Pepito 1.59          2592   35   35   250   42%  2652   24% 
  11 Greko 9.0            2473   38   40   250   21%  2706   18% 

Lucas,

I am sincerely not trying to be a critic, but I have to ask something. As a statistician, how can you make this statement, based on your testing?

Come on now, you are suppose to be chiding the rest of us if we make statements like that

Just joking around,

Adam

this appears to simply be an effort to deflect critcism to Lucas?

that's sad...
unfortunately, you CCRL testers make much more exaggerated claims:

Only problem is remember KLO's compiles are approx. 30 to 70 elo weaker than PPs in Windows,

no, sorry CCRL...
i'm quite sure that Frank Q. ran 1400 games comparing the two compiles and found them extremely close...
how many games did George run?

I do not know how I could have made it clearer that I did not mean that as a criticism. However, given how many around here mangle statistical significance, and given the fact that Lucas is a statistician, I could not help but ask him why he stated with certainty that IvanHoe is 20 Elo stronger based on his testing.

As far as the KLO versus PP compiles go, George has been told that Peter Pan's compiles are better. And since the 50 games matches George runs seemed to back that up, George went with that information.

I don't know if Peter Pan makes code changes or not. Obviously, if he does not then the difference between his compiles and Franklin's compiles can't be very much different in strength. The difference in speed could not be that much.

[michiguel]

anyway, we could go on and argue as much as we want but the fact remains that CCRL is non democratic, and is unwilling to change it. IvanHoe will not be tested, and one the one hand Adam tells me that anyone in CCRL can test anything, on the other hand he says he who dares test IvanHoe will never be accepted in CCRL...
I'm not going to go on about the commercial interests that Norman is talking about, because I don;t believe that's true. But I will tell you guys this: what do you prefer to support
1/ proprietary (closed source) and commercial software ?
2/ open source and community driven software ?
your words may say what they want but your actions repeatedly say 1/
and as an engine developper, all I can tell you is that w/o open source there would be no chess engines today even playing at 2500 elo. Without the Crafty's or the Fruit's of the past and the StockFish and IvanHoe of the present and countless others, there would be nothing. Chess algorithm have always been invented by a community of people developping free/open source software, and those trying to embed these ideas in closed source commercial software have never made any contribution to the community by doing so.
I know you're not programmers, but I do hope you understand what open source is about, and perhaps it will help you decide who you want to support between:
1/ programs like Rybka, where the code is a plagiarism exercise of Fruit and Crafty, and the author organised a war of falsehood and propaganda to smear open source software in the interest of staying on the top of all rating lists...
2/ open source programs, taking ideas and code from other other open source programs (which is perfectly fine and that's the reason why open source software exists) and *in return* making a contribution to the community by published their modified/improved chess algorithms

Lucas, it has always been all engines. More specifically, all authors. I am not sure what you are referencing in regards to non democratic. If it is about what we test, then it is very democratic. Take a look. Ask some other authors. We test every author's engine, or at least try very hard to do that.

If you are referring to IvanHoe not being tested, I am sorry that you and I feel differently. Obviously, the lack of authors does not bother you. That's your choice. Just remember that every open source program but one have authors associated with them. And they (or as many as we have been able to) have been supported by the CCRL.

For instance, ask the author of this engine
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... +opponents
CCRL is testing it and Lucas is ignoring it in his list!

Miguel

[lucasart]

For instance, ask the author of this engine
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... +opponents
CCRL is testing it and Lucas is ignoring it in his list!

Miguel

Hah, you're so funny, adding a fresh touch of humour to the debate I like that!
I will eventually fill the list with weaker engines (including my own one). patience...

[kranium]

Obviously, the lack of authors does not bother you. That's your choice. Just remember that every open source program but one have authors associated with them.

i can assure you that Ivanhoe has known authors:
Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, Roberto Pescatore, Yusuf Ralf Weisskopf, Ivan Skavinsky Skavar
and that they are 'associated' with it's creation and development, they are real people, real human beings.
and I believe you're well aware of that fact, not sure why you're pretending otherwise.

they log on to wikispaces regularly to answer questions, even discuss issues...
just because they don't log in here and kiss 'good-old-boys' ass or conform to your requirement means nothing.

the fact that you and the CCRL 'claim' they are not using their real names is simply speculation and conjecture, to suit your needs, you have no proof.
(i.e. it's simply one last-ditch lame attempt to save face by latching on to some ridiculous reason in an attempt to justify your misguided actions)

you have no idea if it's true or not...,
someone simply discovered that a couple names match with fictional Russian characters, and Roberto Pescatore translates to Robert Fischer.
don't you think there are likely hundreds (if not thousands of real people) named Roberto Pescatore in Italy alone?

how are they a slap in the face to anyone?
your argument is ridiculous

[Graham Banks]

i can assure you that Ivanhoe has known authors:
Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, Roberto Pescatore, Yusuf Ralf Weisskopf, Ivan Skavinsky Skavar
and that they are 'associated' with it's creation and development, they are real people, real human beings.
and I believe you're well aware of that fact, not sure why you're pretending otherwise.

they log on to wikispaces regularly to answer questions, even discuss issues...
just because they don't log in here and kiss 'good-old-boys' ass or conform to your requirement means nothing.

the fact that you and the CCRL 'claim' they are not using their real names is simply speculation and conjecture, to suit your needs, you have no proof.
(i.e. it's simply one last-ditch lame attempt to save face by latching on to some ridiculous reason in an attempt to justify your misguided actions)

you have no idea if it's true or not...,
someone simply discovered that a couple names match with fictional Russian characters, and Roberto Pescatore translates to Robert Fischer.
don't you think there are likely hundreds (if not thousands of real people) named Roberto Pescatore in Italy alone?

how are they a slap in the face to anyone?
your argument is ridiculous

I can assure you that it's not just CCRL testers that don't believe they're real names. You'll probably find more members than not believe it's a sham. Perhaps you should start a poll!

[Laskos]

i can assure you that Ivanhoe has known authors:
Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, Roberto Pescatore, Yusuf Ralf Weisskopf, Ivan Skavinsky Skavar
and that they are 'associated' with it's creation and development, they are real people, real human beings.
and I believe you're well aware of that fact, not sure why you're pretending otherwise.

they log on to wikispaces regularly to answer questions, even discuss issues...
just because they don't log in here and kiss 'good-old-boys' ass or conform to your requirement means nothing.

the fact that you and the CCRL 'claim' they are not using their real names is simply speculation and conjecture, to suit your needs, you have no proof.
(i.e. it's simply one last-ditch lame attempt to save face by latching on to some ridiculous reason in an attempt to justify your misguided actions)

you have no idea if it's true or not...,
someone simply discovered that a couple names match with fictional Russian characters, and Roberto Pescatore translates to Robert Fischer.
don't you think there are likely hundreds (if not thousands of real people) named Roberto Pescatore in Italy alone?

how are they a slap in the face to anyone?
your argument is ridiculous

I can assure you that it's not just CCRL testers that don't believe they're real names. You'll probably find more members than not believe it's a sham. Perhaps you should start a poll!

You also used your own brain, as a brain of a moderator, to ban even the mentioning of the name IPPOLIT here. I advice you in the future, as a basement tester and NOTHING more, to NOT use your own brain in ANY circumstances anymore.

Kai