Testing LazySMP

[LazySMP]

A troll is a troll is a troll.

As I said earlier, Stockfish members (lucametehau, noobpwnftw, RubiChess, shawn, Viz, ...) try to spoil/ruin my discussion so that my engine wouldn't be tested. It seems HGM was right:

It is in no way relevant for what happens here, and I already know that Stockfish community is populated by a bunch of savages.

[Gabor Szots]

1. I don't like the name. Not only because it is a technique many engines use but because your engine does not use it.
2. Before testing an engine my expectation is that the author has tested it for himself. You didn't, your engine had basic bugs, which made you seem unreliable and unserious.
3. Your engine is closed source. That makes it unattractive although not a reason by itself to reject it. And you have failed to give origin and history of development.
4. You push too hard. The harder you push the harder I resist.
5. I had many other engines to test, yours was at the bottom of my testing queue.

I have downloaded v5 and now I have free CPU time as well so I could start testing it immediately. But I am still undecided because I don't like the way you tried to force us to test your engine. You could call it defiance. And open letters like this do not help your case. I am irritated.

[Uri Blass]

The main problem is the author's behaviour and not the fact that the engine does not use a lot of memory.

I think that it may be interesting to test engines that use less than 5 Mbyte memory(or some different limit) based on task manager(including hash tables) and I believe it will be possible to get clearly above 2400 CCRL elo in these conditions(if the limit is 5Mbyte)

Of course with smaller limit at some point it may be impossible.

I know about engines with small size like 4ku but the limitation is not about the memory that they use but about the size of the compressed code.

[Jjaw]

Big whoop , another 2200 elo engine

[LazySMP]

I have downloaded v5 and now I have free CPU time as well so I could start testing it immediately. But I am still undecided because I don't like the way you tried to force us to test your engine. You could call it defiance. And open letters like this do not help your case. I am irritated.

Dear Gabor,

I am very sorry for my behavior in this topic. I forced you to test my engine, and criticized your performance in front of the members. This was not only unprofessional, but also simply disrespectful. I let my frustration about Stockfish members impact my management of behavior. I am taking steps to make sure I do not lose my temper in that way again. I also know how capable you are of testing an engine. I would therefore love for you to test my engine with this free CPU time today. I am very sorry again.

Sincerely, Daniel

[Michel]

This string of threads is becoming obnoxious. The moderators should put a stop to it.

It is trivial to test an engine yourself. You can download plenty of free engines which are in the CCRL or CEGT lists and organize tournaments with them using one of the many freely available tournament managers. This will tell you how strong your engine is.

[towforce]

This string of threads is becoming obnoxious. The moderators should put a stop to it.

It is trivial to test an engine yourself. You can download plenty of free engines which are in the CCRL or CEGT lists and organize tournaments with them using one of the many freely available tournament managers. This will tell you how strong your engine is.

1. One thread ought to suffice

2. Personally, I would test on a chess server: I know that chess.com disallows computers, but I think Lichess allows them, providing the account is marked as a computer account

[hgm]

[Moderation] I merged this "Letter to CCRL" with the existing "Testing LazySMP" thread, as they really handle address the same topic.

[Daniel Anulliero]

I've always thought we couldn't get something worse than Mr ARB ... Done now ...

[LazySMP]

1. I don't like the name. Not only because it is a technique many engines use but because your engine does not use it.
2. Before testing an engine my expectation is that the author has tested it for himself. You didn't, your engine had basic bugs, which made you seem unreliable and unserious.
3. Your engine is closed source. That makes it unattractive although not a reason by itself to reject it. And you have failed to give origin and history of development.
4. You push too hard. The harder you push the harder I resist.
5. I had many other engines to test, yours was at the bottom of my testing queue.