Testing LazySMP

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, chrisw, Rebel

User avatar
LazySMP
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2024 8:31 pm
Full name: Daniel Pierce

Re: A Letter To CCRL Members

Post by LazySMP »

hgm wrote: Fri Nov 22, 2024 9:27 am This will indeed never happen, and that has absolutely nothing to do with "others don't letting them". It is 100% your own doing. By battering CCRL testers with unreasonable requests to test your engine before this long list of much stronger engines that are already waiting to be tested, rather than waiting your turn and treating them with respect, you have succeeded in making them dislike you so much that they will never test your engine.
1. There is no test queue. All the following engines were already in the rating list.
Graham Banks wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2024 5:35 am Caissa 1.21 64-bit (+20)
Elixir 3.0 64-bit (3500?)
Velvet 8.1.1 64-bit (+25)
Lizard 11.1 64-bit
WhiteCore 0.2 64-bit
Sirius 8.0 64-bit (+140)
Quanticade Electra 0.9 64-bit (+90)
Calvin 5.0.2 64-bit (+80 over 4.3.0)
Priessnitz 2.0 64-bit (+80)
Arcanum 2.3.1 64-bit
Heimdall 1.1.1 64-bit (+30)
Cadie 2.0 64-bit
Jackychess 24.06 64-bit (+25)
Yakka 1.1 64-bit (+40)
CT800 1.46 64-bit
Lozza 3.0 64-bit
Tornado 9.0 64-bit (+200)
Aramis 1.4.0 64-bit
Schoenemann 0.3.0 64-bit (+40)
SSCG13 64-bit
Aurora 1.22.0 64-bit (2500)
Tcheran 4.0 64-bit
Fatalii 0.8.0 64-bit (+60)
Euwe 1.3.0 64-bit
Prophet 4.4 64-bit
Molybdenum 4.1 64-bit
Rengar 2.1.1 64-bit (+100)
Ynode 0144 64-bit
Zangdar 2.31 64-bit (+30)
KnightX 4.2 64-bit
Barbarossa 0.7.0 64-bit
Astra 4.0.1 64-bit
Knur 20240903 64-bit
ChessGM 0.7.0 64-bit
Sentinel 1.02 64-bit
ChessKISS 1.8d 64-bit
Camel 1.6.0 64-bit
Stellar 1.4.3 64-bit
2. If I want to increase the power of my engine, others won't let me.
Brunetti wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:56 am How did you manage to gain 400 points in just 4 hours after saying you couldn’t do it?
LazySMP wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 8:14 am According to Einstein's Special theory of relativity, time is relative. Time depends on the reference frame of the observer. If one observer moves with a speed of light then the time will slower down for him. On the other hand if the other observer moves slower than the speed of light then the time will pass faster.
User avatar
hgm
Posts: 28205
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller

Re: Testing LazySMP

Post by hgm »

Perhaps they have not as many games yet as they should?

So you call Graham a liar, and think this will make him more willing to test your engine?

As to point 2: what I see is you chasing away a person that asked a serious question, and has shown willingness to test your engine, by a rude non-sensical answer. It escapes me how what anyone would post here would have an effect on the strength of your engine.
User avatar
Tibono
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:16 pm
Location: France
Full name: Eric Bonneau

Re: Testing LazySMP

Post by Tibono »

Hello Daniel,
I read you keep on focusing on the rating lists selectivity topic; whilst you didn't bother answering the couple of messages I posted, pointing out a bug that almost certainly lies in the pondering management. I took care providing relevant logs, did you see these? Do you plan having this issue fixed?
Please help yourself, fix the basics...
Regards,
Tibono
Jjaw
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:48 pm
Full name: Joe Louvier

Re: Testing LazySMP

Post by Jjaw »

This thread should be locked. I am embarrassed to call myself a member of this forum when threads like this are allowed to persist.
User avatar
hgm
Posts: 28205
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller

Re: Testing LazySMP

Post by hgm »

It is only a single thread, and it is easy enough to just not read it. Much better than locking it so that the discussion will continue in a new thread...
Jjaw
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:48 pm
Full name: Joe Louvier

Re: Testing LazySMP

Post by Jjaw »

Good point
User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 42837
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: A Letter To CCRL Members

Post by Graham Banks »

LazySMP wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2024 4:09 pm1. There is no test queue. All the following engines were already in the rating list.
Here is the current waiting list of engines waiting for 1CPU gauntlets for the 40/15 list:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
bastiball
Posts: 5354
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:18 am
Full name: Basti Dangca

Re: A Letter To CCRL Members

Post by bastiball »

LazySMP wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2024 3:26 am Dear Gabor, Dear Graham, Dear Basti,

As I’m sure you know, you will find testing in CCRL very different from testing in private GUI. For example, you cannot begin testing engines on day one as you did at PC. Engines that do not use a Transposition Table tend to be very fast and this is not a good reason not to test it.

In any event, TT is not necessarily an engine to greater efficiency. I humbly request you to tell me your reasons for not testing my engine. It is a widely believed myth that you accepted the words of the Stockfish community and that's why you don't want to test my engine.

In an age of artificial intelligence, weaker engines are desperately needed to fill the ranks. Complying with complex testing rules makes it slow and difficult to test an engine, and there is little social prestige to saying you work for the chess community.

Under these conditions, you cannot find your way to excellence. I hope you will realize soon, then you find why some people get frustrated.

Yours Sincerely,

Daniel Pierce
I only test FRC and Chess324 as of the moment. I hope you implement FRC so I can test it :D
Basti Dangca
CCRL testing group