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.
Testing LazySMP
Moderators: hgm, chrisw, Rebel
-
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:43 am
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
- Full name: Gabor Szots
Re: A Letter To CCRL Members
Gabor Szots
CCRL testing group
CCRL testing group
-
- Posts: 10602
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
- Location: Tel-Aviv Israel
Re: A Letter To CCRL Members
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:48 pm
- Full name: Joe Louvier
Re: A Letter To CCRL Members
Big whoop , another 2200 elo engine
-
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2024 8:31 pm
- Full name: Daniel Pierce
Re: A Letter To CCRL Members
Dear Gabor,Gabor Szots wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 8:09 am 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.
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
-
- Posts: 2280
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:50 am
Re: A Letter To CCRL Members
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.
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.
Ideas=science. Simplification=engineering.
Without ideas there is nothing to simplify.
Without ideas there is nothing to simplify.
-
- Posts: 11999
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:57 am
- Location: Birmingham UK
- Full name: Graham Laight
Re: A Letter To CCRL Members
Michel wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:48 am 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
The simple reveals itself after the complex has been exhausted.
-
- Posts: 28205
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- Full name: H G Muller
Re: Testing LazySMP
[Moderation] I merged this "Letter to CCRL" with the existing "Testing LazySMP" thread, as they really handle address the same topic.
-
- Posts: 763
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:55 pm
- Location: Nice
Re: Testing LazySMP
I've always thought we couldn't get something worse than Mr ARB ... Done now ...
-
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2024 8:31 pm
- Full name: Daniel Pierce
Re: A Letter To CCRL Members
Gabor Szots wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 8:09 am 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.
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2024 8:30 pm
- Full name: Arthur Matheus
Re: A Letter To CCRL Members
Simple sentence and synthesize what LazySMP is.
I apologize moderators, but LazySMP, this guy or persona or entity is hopeless. He has irritated almost every single member of this community.
Chess computer should be fun here and the limit of toleration has been overpassed several times. I think this community has been more than collaborative with him.
My concerning regards.