El Gringo wrote:
As a member of the CEGT team i also tested Strelka and after a while we had a lot off questions about this engine. I have done some very deep testings and i can say you with 100% that Strelka is an illegal 'remake' or 'clone' from Rybka beta.
I've sent my conclusions to Werner and Michael (CEGT team) and we decided to throw it out of our lists.
CCRL has made a terrible mistake by not deleting Strelka from their lists (IMHO), a little bit more respect to Vasik, Stefan, Mark, Fabien and all the other programmers, that's all !
Hi Johan,
what CEGT has done is their choice and business. What CCRL have done is theirs. I wonder if many have cared to read the changed notes on Stelka that we put up a couple of weeks back.
I understand you are frustrated Graham but this response feels like blind hostility pointed at CEGT to me. Johan has every right to state what he or his test group have done on this public forum.
Let me make this very clear here where I know you can’t miss it Graham. Do not alienate any posters on this forum for having an opinion different than your own.
For others who seem to enjoy taking sides and attacking the other side of an issue, this is not dog pile time. It’s time to move on and get along.
El Gringo wrote:
As a member of the CEGT team i also tested Strelka and after a while we had a lot off questions about this engine. I have done some very deep testings and i can say you with 100% that Strelka is an illegal 'remake' or 'clone' from Rybka beta.
I've sent my conclusions to Werner and Michael (CEGT team) and we decided to throw it out of our lists.
CCRL has made a terrible mistake by not deleting Strelka from their lists (IMHO), a little bit more respect to Vasik, Stefan, Mark, Fabien and all the other programmers, that's all !
Hi Johan,
what CEGT has done is their choice and business. What CCRL have done is theirs. I wonder if many have cared to read the changed notes on Stelka that we put up a couple of weeks back.
I understand you are frustrated Graham but this response feels like blind hostility pointed at CEGT to me. Johan has every right to state what he or his test group have done on this public forum.
Let me make this very clear here where I know you can’t miss it Graham. Do not alienate any posters on this forum for having an opinion different than your own.
For others who seem to enjoy taking sides and attacking the other side of an issue, this is not dog pile time. It’s time to move on and get along.
Have a nice day,
Ryan
Hi Ryan,
I did not read any hostility or even criticism towards Johan or towards CCGT into this quote from Graham. Personally I feel the actions or positions from both CCGT and CCRL as both perfectly defendable on their own and together you can even see it as a balanced response by the testing community towards the Strelka and Belka clonings.
I see nothing wrong with a sensible discussion and the bottomline is, that is what we have also had about this issue. All the negative emotions about how 'the other side' responded in these debates and about differing positions towards Strelka, I am sorry about that of course but maybe that is unavoidable, it also shows that people really care about wanting to do the right thing here, although they just may differ on how to do that.
I think that is all very positive. Nothing to do with dog excrements
El Gringo wrote:
CCRL has made a terrible mistake by not deleting Strelka from their lists (IMHO), a little bit more respect to Vasik, Stefan, Mark, Fabien and all the other programmers, that's all !
what CEGT has done is their choice and business. What CCRL have done is theirs. I wonder if many have cared to read the changed notes on Stelka that we put up a couple of weeks back.
I'm pretty dissapointed that you're using words like "disgrace" for our thread where we're talking about the Strelka issue.
However, i will comment the latest CCRL Strelka statement tomorrow. But you can be sure that i'll tell you that this statement isn't look so nice as it does on the first view for some importent reasons.
El Gringo wrote:
CCRL has made a terrible mistake by not deleting Strelka from their lists (IMHO), a little bit more respect to Vasik, Stefan, Mark, Fabien and all the other programmers, that's all !
what CEGT has done is their choice and business. What CCRL have done is theirs. I wonder if many have cared to read the changed notes on Stelka that we put up a couple of weeks back.
I'm pretty dissapointed that you're using words like "disgrace" for our thread where we're talking about the Strelka issue.
However, i will comment the latest CCRL Strelka statement tomorrow. But you can be sure that i'll tell you that this statement isn't look so nice as it does on the first view for some importent reasons.
Best,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
the disgrace is the release of the joke engines with offensive names by "anonymous authors".
Nothing else. Not intended as an attack on the discussion itself.
El Gringo wrote:
As a member of the CEGT team i also tested Strelka and after a while we had a lot off questions about this engine. I have done some very deep testings and i can say you with 100% that Strelka is an illegal 'remake' or 'clone' from Rybka beta.
I've sent my conclusions to Werner and Michael (CEGT team) and we decided to throw it out of our lists.
CCRL has made a terrible mistake by not deleting Strelka from their lists (IMHO), a little bit more respect to Vasik, Stefan, Mark, Fabien and all the other programmers, that's all !
Hi Johan,
what CEGT has done is their choice and business. What CCRL have done is theirs. I wonder if many have cared to read the changed notes on Stelka that we put up a couple of weeks back.
I understand you are frustrated Graham but this response feels like blind hostility pointed at CEGT to me. Johan has every right to state what he or his test group have done on this public forum.
Let me make this very clear here where I know you can’t miss it Graham. Do not alienate any posters on this forum for having an opinion different than your own.
For others who seem to enjoy taking sides and attacking the other side of an issue, this is not dog pile time. It’s time to move on and get along.
Have a nice day,
Ryan
Hi Ryan,
I did not read any hostility or even criticism towards Johan or towards CCGT into this quote from Graham. Personally I feel the actions or positions from both CCGT and CCRL as both perfectly defendable on their own and together you can even see it as a balanced response by the testing community towards the Strelka and Belka clonings.
I see nothing wrong with a sensible discussion and the bottomline is, that is what we have also had about this issue. All the negative emotions about how 'the other side' responded in these debates and about differing positions towards Strelka, I am sorry about that of course but maybe that is unavoidable, it also shows that people really care about wanting to do the right thing here, although they just may differ on how to do that.
I think that is all very positive. Nothing to do with dog excrements
Regards, Eelco
You're quite correct Eelco.
There was no hostility intended on my part against either Johan or CEGT, and I'd be disappointed if it was taken that there was.
I respect the members of CEGT and their testing an awful lot.
Well I logged in here to check a couple of PMs and found that the Strelka debate still rages unfortunately.
When people have differing opinions, the thing that is normally done is that a compromise is reached. We have offered that compromise and we think probably 90% of people are happy with that, although we realised that some would still not be.
It is important for the Strelka games to remain, so that they can be downloaded and studied by whoever wants to do that and so that our statistics are available for people to study as well. You won't find these sort of statistics anywhere else on the web, and they are important to the overall picture. At the same time the compromise effectively puts a "health warning" on the engine by removing it from best versions lists and pure lists (making it pretty hard to find at all), and the engine notes explain the situation.
You should also be aware that, of the people within CCRL that discussed the matter, I think all have expressed their intention not to run any more games for Strelka.
I think this is a pretty reasonable position and I would urge you and others to accept the compromise, because it in fact goes a very long way to address the concerns over Strelka.
the disgrace is the release of the joke engines with offensive names by "anonymous authors".
Nothing else. Not intended as an attack on the discussion itself.
Regards, Graham.
Graham is right. Ryan, the one who attacked was Johan Havegheer:
Johan Havegheer wrote:CCRL has made a terrible mistake
CCRL hasn't made any terrible mistake, they're collecting data and this is of a high value for the computer chess community. Remember that their "Ponder-hit" statistics was used for many people to harden their confidence that Strelka is a clone.
Well I logged in here to check a couple of PMs and found that the Strelka debate still rages unfortunately.
When people have differing opinions, the thing that is normally done is that a compromise is reached. We have offered that compromise and we think probably 90% of people are happy with that, although we realised that some would still not be.
It is important for the Strelka games to remain, so that they can be downloaded and studied by whoever wants to do that and so that our statistics are available for people to study as well. You won't find these sort of statistics anywhere else on the web, and they are important to the overall picture. At the same time the compromise effectively puts a "health warning" on the engine by removing it from best versions lists and pure lists (making it pretty hard to find at all), and the engine notes explain the situation.
You should also be aware that, of the people within CCRL that discussed the matter, I think all have expressed their intention not to run any more games for Strelka.
I think this is a pretty reasonable position and I would urge you and others to accept the compromise, because it in fact goes a very long way to address the concerns over Strelka.
Ray, i wouldnt waste my time responding to all this if i were you. The people bitching, complaining and whining are just looking for something to nitpick over with us. If it wasnt this, it would be something else. I have tried to always address concerns as honestly and forthright as possible. But with this issue- im sorry. But i have to tell them I'm sick of the crap- sick of their crap- and if they dont like it- they can shove it. We have made a good compromise and that is it. End of story. If they dont like what i say- do i sound like i give a shit. And lastly- let me say this. Everyone listen carefully, because this may be the most important of all. In all my 58 years on this earth- i have never, ever met anyone as nice, kind and helpful as Graham Banks. This guy couldnt be critical in an ugly way if his life depended on it. He is the most "bend over backwards to be fair, honest and diplomatic" guy i have ever met. For anyone to try and pick apart any of his statements and make them into something they arent is total lunacy. And anyone wonders why this place makes me sick.
the disgrace is the release of the joke engines with offensive names by "anonymous authors".
Nothing else. Not intended as an attack on the discussion itself.
Regards, Graham.
Graham is right. Ryan, the one who attacked was Johan Havegheer:
Johan Havegheer wrote:CCRL has made a terrible mistake
CCRL hasn't made any terrible mistake, they're collecting data and this is of a high value for the computer chess community. Remember that their "Ponder-hit" statistics was used for many people to harden their confidence that Strelka is a clone.
I don’t care who tested what and why. What I do care about is when someone on this forum tells someone who has just explained his experience in a calm and non-combative way that what you do is your business and what I do is my business. I can not be convinced that this is a friendly way to respond to someone. Such a responce has the clear connotation that the information shared by that person is unwelcome. When you feel this way about what someone says it is of course best to ignore it.
I still fail to see anything offensive about graham's post. Suppose I was a member of a testing group, and we made some internal decisions, I wouldnt make a comment saying that the others should do the same. It's kind of like Iran trying to force their Sharia law on U.S. If I do something similar, then I deserve what's coming to me.
