CCRL - Supports clones and illegal engines ?

[Daniel Mehrmann]

To be honest I feel very unhappy to read a thread like this after all the effort CCRL put in every day, just to get something like this in our face.

The testers test the engines they like, nothing more, nothing less. I am one of those testers who won't test Strelka. Other people test it. That's the way it is.

If you (Daniel) is going to come here and tell us what to do and threaten with this and that, I'm feeling that the computerchess society has fallen.

You show a total lack of respect for CCRL and what we stand for. Obviously you aren't even aware of the man-hours we put into this project.

It's sad.

Hi Martin,

what's the problem with you guys ?

If you say something, which dislike by the CCRL anyway, you're getting all these statements CCRL doing a great job, nice service and i would blocking testing of engines in some ways and don't accept the work by CCRL.

Excuse me, but these are no arguments in the Strelka case. It just shows me you have no arguments and trying to switch the topic and want to show i'm the "bad" guy here.

This is wrong. The CCRL doing a great job in my view, they present a very nice service in my view, they do a great testing stuff in my view. That is no question. So, whats up ?

I just want to have some answers in the Strelka case. No need to say: "Oh my godness, this bad guy, doesn't accept the CCRL and her work at all"

Best,
Daniel

[Uri Blass]

I do not see how having less information is better than more information.

Note having strelka listed is having less information.

I think that it is better to have other engines tested instead of strelka but if strelka is tested then it is better to have it in the list.

Uri

[Uri Blass]

Vas needs to say something. Until then, the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" should apply.

Regards, Graham.

Graham, this won't work with Vas and you know that. You know no new proofs will come. No court decision will be done, it never happend in the whole history of computerchess.

I believe all these points are well known for you, but you're hiding behind it.

Best,
Daniel

These are the posts I can find by Vas on the Rybka forum regarding Strelka:

I know these statements already.
It says nothing, because Vas must say that, because his engine was attacked. He can't agree this boy during this guy attacked Rybka and Vas himself. If he would agree, only in some points or just one point,Rybka himself would run in problems of course. But i said that in some previous postings already. So, these are no arguments.

Best,
Daniel

HI Daniel

as far as i know there are TWO major testing teams(not counting the SSDF)
The CCRL and the CEGT

do you know if the CEGT is testing Strelka and if not can you say why not?

if they are testing Strelka can i ask you why do you single out the CCRL for your objections?

Best Regards
Steve

I see that strelka was removed from the CEGT list

Uri

[Tord Romstad]

Tord, i think you misunderstood me. Of course some CCRL people like to test Strelka and some CCRL tester dislike testing Strelka. They have different meanings.
But this is not the point. The point is that Strelka is still listed and the public result of this listing for me, is that the CCRL accept Strelka of global ways.

Of course it is listed. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of testing it at all? Telling the testers that "you are allowed to test engine X, but we won't publish the results" is not very different from saying "you are not allowed to test engine X".

By allowing the testers to test Strelka and publishing the results, the CCRL respects everybody's right to form their own opinions, both the testers and the readers of the list. Those of us who are not interested in Strelka's results can simply ignore them.

Tord

[Mike S.]

I do not see how having less information is better than more information.

If it's ethics versus gathering information, how would you decide?

Is this a neverending circus, or is there a chance to close this topic in common sense and in the only reasonable way?

[Martin Thoresen]

Hi Martin,

what's the problem with you guys ?

If you say something, which dislike by the CCRL anyway, you're getting all these statements CCRL doing a great job, nice service and i would blocking testing of engines in some ways and don't accept the work by CCRL.

Excuse me, but these are no arguments in the Strelka case. It just shows me you have no arguments and trying to switch the topic and want to show i'm the "bad" guy here.

This is wrong. The CCRL doing a great job in my view, they present a very nice service in my view, they do a great testing stuff in my view. That is no question. So, whats up ?

I just want to have some answers in the Strelka case. No need to say: "Oh my godness, this bad guy, doesn't accept the CCRL and her work at all"

Best,
Daniel

You gave CCRL an ultimatum in your first post:

I will ask the CCRL to be done a choice: Strelka or Homer, but not both engines in one list!

So unless we remove Strelka from our rating lists, you will continue to argue for the sake of arguing?

Homer is a free engine and as long as it remains a free engine, it will probably be tested by some of the CCRL members and thus end up in the rating list.

If this is not what you want, make your engine private, and give everybody around here some rest from this nonsense.

If it can ease your mind, I have never tested Strelka, nor will I ever test it.

[Steve B]

Vas needs to say something. Until then, the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" should apply.

Regards, Graham.

Graham, this won't work with Vas and you know that. You know no new proofs will come. No court decision will be done, it never happend in the whole history of computerchess.

I believe all these points are well known for you, but you're hiding behind it.

Best,
Daniel

These are the posts I can find by Vas on the Rybka forum regarding Strelka:

I know these statements already.
It says nothing, because Vas must say that, because his engine was attacked. He can't agree this boy during this guy attacked Rybka and Vas himself. If he would agree, only in some points or just one point,Rybka himself would run in problems of course. But i said that in some previous postings already. So, these are no arguments.

Best,
Daniel

HI Daniel

as far as i know there are TWO major testing teams(not counting the SSDF)
The CCRL and the CEGT

do you know if the CEGT is testing Strelka and if not can you say why not?

if they are testing Strelka can i ask you why do you single out the CCRL for your objections?

Best Regards
Steve

I see that strelka was removed from the CEGT list

Uri

thanks
do you know why it was removed and when?

Steve

[Heinz Van Kempen]

Hi Steve ,

a short statement you find here.

http://husvankempen.de/nunn/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=800

Please note that I usually do not post here and this is only one exception. Moreover I do not feel inclined to discuss this issue even more than a lot of people already did. CCRL have their stance and we ours.

Hope we do not have to defend furthermore our position that we do not test what we think to be a clone (not a copy). Maybe things are just like this nowadays that we will be finally accused not to test it.

Please understand that I will not answer here to anyone due to experiences from the past. My email address can be found at the CEGT homepage.

[Steve B]

Hi Steve ,

a short statement you find here.

http://husvankempen.de/nunn/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=800

Please note that I usually do not post here and this is only one exception. Moreover I do not feel inclined to discuss this issue even more than a lot of people already did. CCRL have their stance and we ours.

Hope we do not have to defend furthermore our position that we do not test what we think to be a clone (not a copy). Maybe things are just like this nowadays that we will be finally accused not to test it.

Please understand that I will not answer here to anyone due to experiences from the past. My email address can be found at the CEGT homepage.

hi Heinz

i thank you for your reply

Best Regards
Steve

[pijl]

Unfortunately the use of other peoples source code to get a head-start is something that is hard to fight. From the perspective of the programmer it is unfair, as we see improving chess engines as a competition where we would like to have a fair fight. From the viewpoint of a user: Why should he care where the programmer started from. If he made a significant improvement, they will welcome it, and try to use it to get a higher ranking at playchess. Users are in the majority so they win.

For myself: I do not pay attention to lists where recent versions are not playing. AFAIK CCRL only tests publicly available engines and I will not stop them to use the Baron in their tests, nor will I release engines to make it appear on their list. And sending private versions I only do to a few lucky ones.

So whatever happens in CCRL: I do not really care. I hope they have fun with the Baron and the other engines they are playing with. It is not worth it for me to get a heart-attack over it.

Richard.