We are the Computer Chess Community. We control ourselves.

[smatovic]

Frederic Friedel wrote an entire article about scamming other people and how he is basically a scammer in 2016:

No wonder why Chessbase continuously does scammy things r.e. Houdini, Fat Fritz, etc.

Fom the blog post:

...That’s the scam rule: hits will be reported enthusiastically, with details added to make them even more impressive. Misses will immediately fade into oblivion....

Haha, let's ponder about that a while...

--
Srdja

[flok]

Again hello Volkert,

oh yes, absolutely ... "POLISH Users"!

Indeed to 100% my opinion what I wrote here!
Unfortunately, people like to read only what they wish to read only!

Best
Frank

I'm curious why you insist on writing my first name with a V?
In the country where I live, one is free to spell it with an F.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Folkert,

you are right!
Sorry for my mistake!!

Best
Frank

Edit:
Your avatar is very nice, I like it!

[gonzochess75]

Here is the reality: the computer chess community is in control of itself. Issues arise, and people deflect and say that its an issue for the courts. Wrong. This community runs on the court of public opinion, public discourse, and public debate. There is broad consensus that Houdini and Fire are stolen goods. Do something about it. Take them off your rating list, CCRL, CEGT, FastGM, Ipman. We know that nothing created by Albert Silver is worth our time, so don't test them, don't rate them, don't analyze with them. Albert is a nobody, don't put him in a position he has not earned.

Amazing how badly this thread has gone off the rails. As for Andrew's original point... how much attention is even paid to these rating lists? If the managers of these rating lists are not willing to stick up for ethical chess engine development, then I see no reason to continue pleading with them to do so. Just ignore them.

For me, I don't see any point in duplicating what they do because I see very little value in what they do already! Between TCEC, CCC, OpenBench and Fishtest we have a pretty damn good idea about what the top of the chess engine world looks like. What added signal do these rating lists really provide?? Sincerely asking!

Does anyone outside of the rating managers themselves and people who believe in ethical chess software development actually find value in these lists? If not, then they should be shunned/mocked/ignored in varying amounts if they *also* support unethical chess software development.

My two cents and trying to get the thread back on point.

[flok]

Here is the reality: the computer chess community is in control of itself. Issues arise, and people deflect and say that its an issue for the courts. Wrong. This community runs on the court of public opinion, public discourse, and public debate. There is broad consensus that Houdini and Fire are stolen goods. Do something about it. Take them off your rating list, CCRL, CEGT, FastGM, Ipman. We know that nothing created by Albert Silver is worth our time, so don't test them, don't rate them, don't analyze with them. Albert is a nobody, don't put him in a position he has not earned.

Amazing how badly this thread has gone off the rails. As for Andrew's original point... how much attention is even paid to these rating lists? If the managers of these rating lists are not willing to stick up for ethical chess engine development, then I see no reason to continue pleading with them to do so. Just ignore them.

For me, I don't see any point in duplicating what they do because I see very little value in what they do already! Between TCEC, CCC, OpenBench and Fishtest we have a pretty damn good idea about what the top of the chess engine world looks like. What added signal do these rating lists really provide?? Sincerely asking!

Does anyone outside of the rating managers themselves and people who believe in ethical chess software development actually find value in these lists? If not, then they should be shunned/mocked/ignored in varying amounts if they *also* support unethical chess software development.

My two cents and trying to get the thread back on point.

So you should harm people if they have a different opinion? Is that what you're saying?
But what if, after a while, you find that you were wrong and they were right but you already harmed them?

[gonzochess75]

Here is the reality: the computer chess community is in control of itself. Issues arise, and people deflect and say that its an issue for the courts. Wrong. This community runs on the court of public opinion, public discourse, and public debate. There is broad consensus that Houdini and Fire are stolen goods. Do something about it. Take them off your rating list, CCRL, CEGT, FastGM, Ipman. We know that nothing created by Albert Silver is worth our time, so don't test them, don't rate them, don't analyze with them. Albert is a nobody, don't put him in a position he has not earned.

Amazing how badly this thread has gone off the rails. As for Andrew's original point... how much attention is even paid to these rating lists? If the managers of these rating lists are not willing to stick up for ethical chess engine development, then I see no reason to continue pleading with them to do so. Just ignore them.

For me, I don't see any point in duplicating what they do because I see very little value in what they do already! Between TCEC, CCC, OpenBench and Fishtest we have a pretty damn good idea about what the top of the chess engine world looks like. What added signal do these rating lists really provide?? Sincerely asking!

Does anyone outside of the rating managers themselves and people who believe in ethical chess software development actually find value in these lists? If not, then they should be shunned/mocked/ignored in varying amounts if they *also* support unethical chess software development.

My two cents and trying to get the thread back on point.

So you should harm people if they have a different opinion? Is that what you're saying?
But what if, after a while, you find that you were wrong and they were right but you already harmed them?

I never said anything about harming people. Where'd you learn to read?

[flok]

Here is the reality: the computer chess community is in control of itself. Issues arise, and people deflect and say that its an issue for the courts. Wrong. This community runs on the court of public opinion, public discourse, and public debate. There is broad consensus that Houdini and Fire are stolen goods. Do something about it. Take them off your rating list, CCRL, CEGT, FastGM, Ipman. We know that nothing created by Albert Silver is worth our time, so don't test them, don't rate them, don't analyze with them. Albert is a nobody, don't put him in a position he has not earned.

Amazing how badly this thread has gone off the rails. As for Andrew's original point... how much attention is even paid to these rating lists? If the managers of these rating lists are not willing to stick up for ethical chess engine development, then I see no reason to continue pleading with them to do so. Just ignore them.

For me, I don't see any point in duplicating what they do because I see very little value in what they do already! Between TCEC, CCC, OpenBench and Fishtest we have a pretty damn good idea about what the top of the chess engine world looks like. What added signal do these rating lists really provide?? Sincerely asking!

Does anyone outside of the rating managers themselves and people who believe in ethical chess software development actually find value in these lists? If not, then they should be shunned/mocked/ignored in varying amounts if they *also* support unethical chess software development.

My two cents and trying to get the thread back on point.

So you should harm people if they have a different opinion? Is that what you're saying?
But what if, after a while, you find that you were wrong and they were right but you already harmed them?

I never said anything about harming people. Where'd you learn to read?

I believe you wrote:

If not, then they should be shunned/mocked/ignored in varying amounts if they *also* support unethical chess software development.

At least mocking can be harmful.

[gonzochess75]

Here is the reality: the computer chess community is in control of itself. Issues arise, and people deflect and say that its an issue for the courts. Wrong. This community runs on the court of public opinion, public discourse, and public debate. There is broad consensus that Houdini and Fire are stolen goods. Do something about it. Take them off your rating list, CCRL, CEGT, FastGM, Ipman. We know that nothing created by Albert Silver is worth our time, so don't test them, don't rate them, don't analyze with them. Albert is a nobody, don't put him in a position he has not earned.

Amazing how badly this thread has gone off the rails. As for Andrew's original point... how much attention is even paid to these rating lists? If the managers of these rating lists are not willing to stick up for ethical chess engine development, then I see no reason to continue pleading with them to do so. Just ignore them.

For me, I don't see any point in duplicating what they do because I see very little value in what they do already! Between TCEC, CCC, OpenBench and Fishtest we have a pretty damn good idea about what the top of the chess engine world looks like. What added signal do these rating lists really provide?? Sincerely asking!

Does anyone outside of the rating managers themselves and people who believe in ethical chess software development actually find value in these lists? If not, then they should be shunned/mocked/ignored in varying amounts if they *also* support unethical chess software development.

My two cents and trying to get the thread back on point.

So you should harm people if they have a different opinion? Is that what you're saying?
But what if, after a while, you find that you were wrong and they were right but you already harmed them?

I never said anything about harming people. Where'd you learn to read?

I believe you wrote:

If not, then they should be shunned/mocked/ignored in varying amounts if they *also* support unethical chess software development.

At least mocking can be harmful.

In many cases, when people do things that are harmful to others - like scamming them out of their hard earned money, or taking credit for others hard work - they should be mocked. In many cases, this can actually reduce the overall harm. For instance, if they have any shame or guilt for what they've done. It can also help to alert their would be victims to the scam and thus help them avoid harm.

[flok]

When people do things that are harmful to others - like scamming them out of their hard earned money, or taking credit for others hard work - they should be mocked. At the very least.

Ah, you're a man of the bible (Matth. 5:38-42.).

[Cornfed]

Frederic Friedel wrote an entire article about scamming other people and how he is basically a scammer in 2016:

No wonder why Chessbase continuously does scammy things r.e. Houdini, Fat Fritz, etc.

You really should explain yourself ir relation to 'Houdini' for example.
His use of the word 'Scamming' by his does not seem to fit in with yours as I read it.

In any case, when people say Chessbase is a success only because of it's 'marketing', they miss the larger point that people are free to purchase or not. I find Chessbase for example FAR more easy to use than Chess Assistant... and for most peoples purposes, one can use the Chessbase products FAR more easily than those found in Aquarium which is relegated to a terribly niche market. By catering to the larger market, they are a success while the CA people (an various freeware no one has any financial interest in further developing) languish. Capitalism works. Open source works for enthusiasts.

Will anyone really buy a new Fritz every time one is offered when they can use a slightly older version and plug in their favorite open source/freeware engine? Not many although some seem to have money to burn for their obsessions. In the end, after all, because engines are so close in strength, one is really only paying for the Fritz GUI and if they do not find useful ways to develop it, I can't see people always chasing after a new one.