CCRL statement wrote: The legal position of Strelka is untested, and therefore CCRL as a group does not offer any opinion. This is constantly under review. Strelka is playing almost identically to Rybka 1.0 and this is supported by our correlation statistics and by other independent studies. We don't believe that this similarity is accidental and therefore for the purposes of our rating list, we have included it as part of the Rybka family. The implications of that are that it should not appear on any of the pure lists or best versions lists. It will only be visible on the Complete List or any custom lists. A further effect of this is that the volume of future games for Strelka will be low or probably NIL.
Hi Graham and CCRL team !
After a detailed analysis of your statement I'd like to accept the current proceeding in the CCRL Strelka case. Basicly i think this is a step in the right direction.
I don't like the idea that it's still possible to test Strelka in the future, but recapitulatory the group statement is clear and that counts for me.
Well, finally i hope this will never happen again. It was a hard time and not easy for everyone of course.
Just a few words to some guys here about they feel attacked with the CCRL work. You know that's wrong. I never attacked somebody personaly because he works for CCRL.
I also wrote that i accept what people are doing in private at home. They can do (test) what they want of course. My focus was on the outside group statement and list entries of engines which will be visible for the chessplayers around the world.
Best,
Daniel