Leela data worth +20 elo

[AndrewGrant]

Not surprised you jumped in here, along with Connor to defend CCRL...seeing how they seem to have become your lapdog, due to criticisms, not to mention boycott threats.

Do I need post them here?

If I had any sway over CCRL, Fire & Houdini would have been removed years ago.
To suggest my personal leanings have any impact on CCRL is generous.
I'm not exactly the most important person in the world you should know.

And I uh, constantly rail against CCRL (Out of appreciation and respect for it, actually, but nuance is hard on the internet). So not sure how I can defend it. And you can't exactly boycott a rating list with a public engine. Worst I could do is spitefully get them to cough up $40 for Ethereal. Which I of course would never do.

And to continue pointing out the issues: I do believe CCRL had Fire running Stockfish nets at one point, as well as Nemorino? And maybe a few others. I'm not up-to-date.

CEGT did pull the Fire versions running Stockfish nets after I pointed it out, to which I am appreciative. But in the Andrew run world, Fire is not there to begin with obviously.

[connor_mcmonigle]

CCRL has no such official policy in my understanding...

If engine B copies engine A's evaluation function functionally verbatim, can we really consider engine B a unique engine? At this point, why not just copy the search as well? The majority of authors have avoided doing this as it's generally regarded as incredibly boring and doing so eliminates any room for creativity and differentiation with respect to the evaluation function.

Current exceptions that I'm aware of are: FireNN, Gogobello, Mayhem, Tornado, AndscacsNNUE (the author mentioned this was just an experiment and not to be tested), BBC (also just an experiment), Caissa and Coiled. It could make sense to append "SF" to the end of these engines' names, but I'd argue you'd be better off just not testing them in that case (which is the policy CCRL has adopted FWIW).

So you deny they have such a policy on one hand, but specify they actually do on the other hand?
Can people actually believe anything you say?

prepare: techno mumbo jumbo confusing smoke-screen!

CCRL has no such official policy in my understanding...

This policy is not officially stated anywhere, though it does seem to be the policy CCRL is employing (as a consequence of testers not being interested in testing such engines). Hopefully that clarifies what I meant.

[ImNotStockfish]

Source?

I was wondering if SF 14.2 or SF 15 was due soon based on the time gap between 14 and 14.1

Stockfish release schedule: https://github.com/official-stockfish/S ... zed%20Elo)

[Vernon Crawford]

And you can't exactly boycott a rating list with a public engine. Worst I could do is spitefully get them to cough up $40 for Ethereal. Which I of course would never do.

You wouldn't do something like that?

In CMCanavessi's "FRC Top 20" tournament, you threatened to no longer provide him with free copies of dev versions of commercial Ethereal,
if he didn't do as you wanted and remove certain engines...

which outraged many members:

"I am sorry but this has got to to be the most outrageous post I have ever seen on this site.!
So you essentially think you can tell someone to remove publicly available engine from their private tournaments?
Even if you gave a special version of Ethereal away you don't have that right."

forum3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=77931&start=10

To suggest my personal leanings have any impact on CCRL is generous.

"CEGT did pull the Fire versions running Stockfish nets after I pointed it out"

sad to see that they would cave in just from the threat of not receiving your questionable 40 dollar engine...pathetic.

[Vernon Crawford]

This policy is not officially stated anywhere, though it does seem to be the policy CCRL is employing (as a consequence of testers not being interested in testing such engines). Hopefully that clarifies what I meant.

Your foot in your mouth?...no clarification necessary, thanks anyway.

PS - It's clear they will never issue an 'official' policy, much safer to avoid criticism by remaining a moving target...
Sad thing is to see these testing groups buckle under pressure from you and Andrew and others with hateful narrow-minded agendas so easily.
That's a real tragedy.

[AndrewGrant]

To suggest my personal leanings have any impact on CCRL is generous.

"CEGT did pull the Fire versions running Stockfish nets after I pointed it out"

sad to see that they would cave in just from the threat of not receiving your questionable 40 dollar engine...pathetic.

Sorry but, what part of the phrase "after I pointed it out" did you read as "threatened someone if they did not do what I wanted"?

Heres a rough transcript for you:

Andrew: yo, by the way that Fire version you just tested is using a Stockfish net
CEGT: No shot, really? You sure? I know you've long been of the position that Stockfish = Fire.
Andrew: Yeah don't take my word for it, heres the official release, where Norman states its a net from Sergio <link>
CEGT: Thanks.

Happy to provide any more clarity where needed.

[connor_mcmonigle]

This policy is not officially stated anywhere, though it does seem to be the policy CCRL is employing (as a consequence of testers not being interested in testing such engines). Hopefully that clarifies what I meant.

Your foot in your mouth?...no clarification necessary, thanks anyway.

PS - It's clear they will never issue an 'official' policy, much safer to avoid criticism by remaining a moving target...
Sad thing is to see these testing groups buckle under pressure from you and Andrew and others with hateful narrow-minded agendas so easily.
That's a real tragedy.

That the concept of an unofficial policy eludes you should probably not come as a surprise considering you have comprehension issues by your own earlier admission.

"hateful narrow-minded agenda"
That's some laughable hyperbole. I'm genuinely curious as to why you care so deeply about this, Vernon. You don't even seem particularly interested in computer chess based on your post history... odd.

[Graham Banks]

Hi Vernon,

I'm only posting here to confirm that although Andrew, Connor and some other engine authors don't approve of certain engines in the CCRL lists, they've not tried to directly pressure us into removing them.

In fact, I'm on good terms with them, just as I am with you.

Graham.

[Guenther]

Hi Vernon,

I'm only posting here to confirm that although Andrew, Connor and some other engine authors don't approve of certain engines in the CCRL lists, they've not tried to directly pressure us into removing them.

In fact, I'm on good terms with them, just as I am with you.

Graham.

I dare to say, but if you are on good terms with 'VC' something must be wrong already ;-)

[Graham Banks]

Hi Vernon,

I'm only posting here to confirm that although Andrew, Connor and some other engine authors don't approve of certain engines in the CCRL lists, they've not tried to directly pressure us into removing them.

In fact, I'm on good terms with them, just as I am with you.

Graham.

I dare to say, but if you are on good terms with 'VC' something must be wrong already