CCRL Forum censored my posting on Houdini 1.5 unjustifiably!

[MichaelIsGreat]

Hello to All,

I am not a fanboy of any particular chess engine. If I was, I surely would be a Rybka 4 fanboy for the simple reason that it has been the best chess engine for quite a while and his author should be praised for his accomplishments. So, maybe I am a fanboy of the current best chess engine, whatever this chess engine might be!

I recently checked the CCRL chess engine rating lists at http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040.live/ and I noticed that Houdini 1.5 was not even listed. More, not even the last previous version of Houdini (1.03a I think) that was already in the top 3 chess engines was also not listed! Consequently, I decided to check the CCRL forums to see if I would see any posting on Houdini, doing a basic search of their forums using the keyword Houdini. I found not a single result using the word Houdini! It seemed quite odd to say the least, considering that Houdini has been among the top 3 chess engines for quite a while and now Houdini 1.5 seems to be the strongest and first chess engine by a significant margin.
One would assume that the CCRL chess engine rating lists are fair, honest and reliable. It seems NOT to be the case I am sad to say and I will explain you why below.
Seeing no post on Houdini at any of the CCRL forums, I decided that I would change that and therefore I made a first posting on Houdini on the CCRL forums.

The postings I made on the CCRL forums were perfectly polite and there was no justified reasons at all to censor them. Yet, one "moderator" (censor) called Ray decided that he did not want to hear anything related to Houdini and he found completely false, dishonest, and illogical reasons to censor my postings on Houdini. I contacted Kirill, the main moderator, and I got the same shameful behaviour from him than I had got from this Ray guy!

Consequently, I post here on this forum that I assume is fair and honest the three postings that I made on the CCRL forums. This way, you will be judge if you think they should have been censored in any way!
---MY FIRST POSTING ON THE CCRL FORUM.
-------------------------------------------------------
HOUDINI 1.5, THE BEST CHESS ENGINE? VERY LIKELY!
by MichaelIsGreat » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:07 pm
Hello to All,

---First point: Houdini 1.5
Houdini 1.5 is now available at http://www.cruxis.com/chess/houdini.htm
It is a free UCI chess engine that seems to be nothing less than one of the best chess engines currently available, including compared to the commercial chess engines such as Rybka 4.
The IPON computer chess rating list at http://www.inwoba.de/ rates it currently number 1 above Rybka 4. Other testers have rated it also number 1.
For all these reasons, I decided to register with you only to post this message in your forums when I saw that a simple search in your forums using the keyword Houdini did not even produce a single entry!! I was surprised at such a result.
Therefore, I ask you to include Houdini 1.5 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE in your chess rating list.
Moreover, I would appreciate a lot if a few of you would not mind being volunteers who would be ready to test Houdini 1.5, especially under the current conditions set for this particular CCRL 40/40 rating. In advance, thank you to all of those who would like to test Houdini. I am sure that it should be very interesting to see how good Houdini is when using 40 moves in 40 min.

---Second point: the wrong condition of setting Pondering to off.
Another point that I would like to mention in my very first posting on your forums. In http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... about.html it says that one of the conditions for the "CCRL 40/40 Testing Conditions" is that Pondering be set to OFF. I find this condition to be a very BIG mistake. Why? Most human players are fully allowed by the rules of chess to think, to calculate lines when it is not their turn to play even though quite a few decide to rest when it is not their turn to play. Consequently, it is a huge mistake to set ponder to off because it simply does not reproduce the reality of a game in chess, it also violates the current rules of chess that allow any human chess player to think, to calculate lines even when it is not their turn to play.
I must remind you that you must write conditions that mimic as closely as possible the conditions that exist in reality and, most important of all, you must also write conditions that respect fully the rules of chess. You surely would not want to change the rules of chess and this idea of setting pondering to off violates one of the rules of chess.
Therefore, the second point that I would like to open to discussion is that you MUST change this pondering setting to on always; that should be one of the new conditions that you must implement, no matter if it changes completely the previous testings that have been made with pondering set to off. It is vital that you respect fully ALL the rules of chess as they are in place currently and, unfortunately for you, one of them is that any human player is fully allowed to think, to calculate lines when it is not his/her turn to play.

---Third point.
I am not aware how you add a chess engine to your rating list for testing. If you would happen to require the consent of the programmer of the chess engine so as you could start adding it to your rating list, I am sure that the programmer of Houdini, Robert Houdart, agrees fully to allow you to start adding his Houdini chess engine to your list of chess engines that are being tested with you. Just send him an email if you would require his permission on this matter. His email address is clearly stated at http://www.cruxis.com/chess/houdini.htm and it is houdini@cruxis.be . Thanks.

---Finally, to answer the question I myself asked in the subject title: HOUDINI 1.5, THE BEST CHESS ENGINE? VERY LIKELY!
Just two results:
1) Houdini 1.5 is FIRST BY A WIDE MARGIN on "G/90mins Ratings " at http://www.brinan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ ... atings.htm
2) Houdini 1.5 is also FIRST on "IPON RATING LIST" at http://www.inwoba.de/
Therefore, be it a long time or a short time to play the game, Houdini 1.5 comes FIRST at the top.
Consequently, it is clear that Houdini 1.5 is now the clear number 1 chess engine (even considering Rybka 4)!


Thanks to take into consideration these 3 points that I have just stated above.

Best Regards to All.
MichaelIsGreat

Last edited by MichaelIsGreat on Mon Dec 27, 2010 12:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
MichaelIsGreat
-------------------------------------------------------

---MY SECOND POSTING ON THE CCRL FORUM.
-------------------------------------------------------
Re: Houdini 1.5
by MichaelIsGreat » Mon Dec 27, 2010 12:28 pm
Hello to All,

Thank you for your comments.

---To Ray, you say: "The majority of ratings lists are ponder OFF.".
Does it mean that if the majority does something wrong by using ponder to OFF, we ought to carry on this mistake and use ponder off?!! I remind you that, in chess, any player is fully entitled to think during his opponent's time; this is a rule in chess. Therefore, the testing done with chess engines must apply ALL the rules of chess without exception and consequently the testing of chess engines MUST be done using ponder ON only, again because it is a rule in chess.

---To Volker Pittlik, you say: "Pre first point: why announcing this here?".
You do not seem to have read very carefully what I wrote in my posting. I very clearly gave the reason why I posted the posting Houdini 1.5 by saying: "I decided to register with you only to post this message in your forums when I saw that a simple search in your forums using the keyword Houdini did not even produce a single entry!! I was surprised at such a result". Very surprising if not very strange, considering the fact that Houdini was one of the top 3 chess engines in the world for quite a while and Houdini 1.5 is now the undisputed number 1 in the world (even when considering Rybka 4)!!.
Moreover, are you not surprised or shocked that such a strong chess engine like Houdini 1.5 or even the previous already very strong versions of Houdini NEVER EVER appeared on any of the CCRL chess engine rating lists?

Therefore, I believe it is time that Houdini 1.5 appears on the CCRL chess engines rating lists AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, if it was only for the sake of the credibility of these CCRL chess engines rating lists.

For the record, I am not Robert Houdart, the gifted programmer of Houdini 1.5 but he does deserve the full credit for his accomplishment with Houdini 1.5. Moreover, I remind all that Houdini 1.5 is provided completely free at http://www.cruxis.com/chess/houdini.htm
Do we not owe this great Belgian guy, Robert Houdart, to test his chess engine Houdini 1.5 when he is kind enough to provide it for free to all and when it is now the undisputed number 1 in the world? (For instance, see "G/90mins Ratings" at http://www.brinan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ ... atings.htm )
I know you will do the right thing and add Houdini 1.5 to your chess engine rating lists very soon. Thank you in advance.
-------------------------------------------------------

---MY THIRD POSTING ON THE CCRL FORUM.
-------------------------------------------------------
Re: HOUDINI 1.5, THE BEST CHESS ENGINE? VERY LIKELY!
by MichaelIsGreat » Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:08 pm
Hello to All,

---About Ray's latest comments, one of them being completely inappropriate!
You say (Ray » Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:51 pm):
"Our three lists will continue to be ponder OFF. If you don't like ponder off, then you don't have look at our list and CEGT's list and the many others who use it. The choice is yours."
It is not a matter of liking or not liking ponder OFF, it is a matter of testing chess engines respecting ALL the rules of chess!! As a chess player is fully entitled by the rules of chess to think while it is his opponent's turn, the ponder parameter set to OFF violates this particular rule of chess and therefore ponder set of OFF is completely wrong, invalid, illegitimate and render all your tests on chess engines completely inaccurate!!! You cannot test accurately chess engines by violating the rules of chess!! Do you get this basic logic, Mr. Ray?!!!
Therefore, it is not that I do not like or I do like this ponder set to OFF, it is that it violates the rules of chess and renders all your tests on chess engines completely wrong!!

---You say, you the guy called Ray (from London!), the following astonishing and basically inadmissible remark:
"As regards Houdini, we think our list is just fine without it, thank you."
Houdini 1.5 is now the strongest chess engine existing, stronger than the previous leader Rybka 4, and you Ray you dare claiming that "our list is just fine without it"!!! Completely inappropriate and inadmissible remark, to say the least and to stay polite on this forum but you get the idea!!!
What agenda do you have, you the Mr. Ray from London, to hide the best chess engine Houdini 1.5 from your chess engine rating lists?!!!
Honestly, this kind of remark is plain wrong and nothing less than inadmissible to me. I hope you have the clarity of thinking to see that yourself!
For this reason alone, I will not reply to any of your subsequent remarks because this particular remark shows me that you have a hidden agenda or that you are not a rational, logical person! I do not waste my time speaking to irrational people!
I am sure that there are many rational, logical persons on this forum who will ask for Houdini 1.5 to be added for testing to your chess engine rating lists (allowing to see its performance also with ponder set to OFF even though I do not agree with setting ponder to off).
I would advise you to spare me of similar irrational remarks like this particular one that I have just mentioned!

Best Regards to all the (rational, logical) Readers!
MichaelIsGreat
-------------------------------------------------------

Do you really think that this kind of postings on Houdini 1.5 (that I sent on the CCRL forum) should be censored on any fair, honest forum? I do NOT think so!

Finally, a note on another chess engine rating list, the CEGT chess engine rating lists at http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/
Again, not a single version of Houdini has been added to their CEGT list of chess engines! When you see that, you know that there is something really not honest at all for these particular CEGT chess engine rating lists. Why? Any chess engine rating list that has any kind of concern for fairness would make sure to have tested first the chess engines that seem to be the strongest. Houdini 1.03a was already among the first 3 strongest chess engines quite a while ago and should already have been included a while ago in their GEGT list of chess engines; it never happened!
Moreover, quite a while ago, I sent an email to the tester dealing with questions related to the CEGT chess engine rating lists and I asked him why Houdini (any version) had never ever been tested. I got no reply and currently his email address seems not to work anymore!

CONCLUSION:
---The CCRL chess engine rating lists are highly biased in favor of Rybka 4 it would seem. They do have an agenda of avoiding testing Houdini 1.5 and this agenda has nothing to do with fairness for Houdini 1.5!!!
---Worse, there is a implicit agreement on these CCRL chess engine rating lists to avoid testing Houdini (not only version 1.5 but also any previous version that could be strong!). You have heard it directly from Ray!!!
---One must be highly suspicious of any chess engine rating list (such as the CCRL or CEGT chess engine rating lists) that would avoid testing the strongest chess engines, especially Houdini 1.5 that is considered, at the present time, to be the strongest chess engine existing!!
---I do understand (and even accept) a forum from a particular chess engine that is sold commercially to basically avoid mentioning free chess engines that are even stronger than this particular engine.
Having said that, I do not accept at all that chess engine rating lists silence a particular engine like Houdini 1.5 because they favor other chess engines, whatever these other chess engines might be.
To be reliable, fair and logical, a chess engine rating list should not favor any particular chess engine!!!
---The reasons given to me by emails from Kirill, the main moderator of the CCRL forums, were dishonest, not logical, and irrational!! Kirill even went as far as telling me that to delete my postings on Houdini was not censoring them but only moderating them!!! There is no excuse for acting the way Kirill acted against me.

I have been fair and honest in this explanation to all, even to Ray and to Kirill. Once more, and it is worth repeating, chess engine users rely on these chess engine rating lists to make an "informed" judgment on the strength of these chess engines. They implicitly assume that these chess engine rating lists are fair, honest and, most important, that these chess engine rating lists do NOT have any agenda of any kind favoring a particular chess engine. Unfortunately, as I have demonstrated with this posting, it is NOT the case!! Chess engine rating lists do have, more often than one would like to think, their own agenda favoring their pet chess engines, for whatever reasons they have.
To intentionally mislead these chess engine users (for whatever reasons) by intentionally avoiding testing particular chess engines that might be stronger than one's favorite chess engine is plain wrong, dishonest, inadmissible and should be denounced and that is exactly what I do in this posting. I have no qualms accusing the people behind the CCRL chess engine rating lists of intentionally avoiding testing Houdini (any version) as they should have done long ago (no matter their own constraints for testing chess engines) only to avoid dethroning their favorite chess engine Rybka 4! I find this deceptive behaviour inadmissible and highly misleading, to say the least!

I hope this posting will not be censored again! Thank you very much. I have been fair and honest to all and therefore there is no reason to censor this posting.

Best Regards to All.
MichaelIsGreat

[Robert Houdart]

Hi MichaelIsGreat,

The CCRL are very much entitled to decide what engines they include in their rating list. The reply "As regards Houdini, we think our list is just fine without it, thank you." is perfectly acceptable, it's THEIR list.

Whether they are providing a service to the chess community by doing this, is another matter.

There's also the small question of the relevance of a rating list if it doesn't include the strongest engine. Information travels very fast these days, and at some point people will decide that if Houdini isn't on the rating list, the rating list must be crap...

As for the contributing members of the CCRL, they're just missing out on all the fun and excitement at seeing a change at the top after 4 years of Rybka dominance.

Cheers,
Robert

[Prima]

MichealIsGreat,

I unerstand where you're coming from. Since the CCRL is somewhat privately owned, it's their right to test engines that suits them. Let me put things about the CCRL into perspective:

It's been known that the CCRL don't like engines that gets too close to the current resigning Rybka-version of the time. Remember when Rybka 2.3.2a was the leading version of its time? If you recall, Naum 4.0 (or 4.1, can't remember exact version) finally overtook Rybka 2.3.2a in strength, approximately by 40-80 ELOs. Shortly after, Deep Shredder also overpowered Rybka 2.3.2a by about 50-60 ELO. My figures may not be exact but I do remember both engines had a huge ELO margin over Rybka 2.3.2a.

Keep in mind, these two engines and its authors are well known in computer chess. You would think that after Naum 4.0/1 and Deep Shredder 12 surpassed Rybka 2.3.2a in strength, that you would see it reflected in their CCRL lists at that period. Well, it didn't. For weeks to months, I kept checking the CCRL site to see if both Naum 4.0 and Deep Shredder 12 would be placed in the first-two ranking.....ahead of Rybka 2.3.2a but that didn't occur.

It's when Rybka 3 was released then the CCRL folks "decided to place Naum 4.0 and Deep Shredder 12 ahead of Rybka 2.3.2a" .....after many months of their release. Even now when CCRL do finally show both Naum and Deep shredder 12's ahead, in comparison to Rybka 2.3.2a, they try to show an ELO increase of a mere 1 to maybe 5 Elos. This isn't the truth.

Why do you think this happened? Even when Naum 4.0 and Deep Shredder 12 clearly outperformed Rybka 2.3.2a during it's time, why did it take months for the CCRL members to finally show this? Why not show the truth? Keep in mind, both Alex Naumov and Stephan Meyer-Kahlen (SMK) have been known for a long time and the CCRL still screws these two commercial authors financially. How? Had the people at mass known this truth (actually few people did) in the Rybka 2.3.2a era, they would have purchased Naum 4.0 and Deep Shredder 12 in mass quantities.

I say this to answer your question (which I do understand) why these CCRL folks WILL NOT test engines stronger than Rybka. The main issue is, people have been so used to the CCRL and CEGT rating list that its comparable to people addicted to name-brand clothing or items. It's called "consumer taste" or preference, with the exception that money is not directly involved between the mass and CCRL - since the CCRL are not the "producers/manufactures". Never the less, their dishonest actions do directly affect people's market-behavior (simply believe them or just naive) and the market of particular good/s.

There are numerous independent, unbiased, and reputable testers around who test engines and release results as-is.
It's up to the mass to acknowledge their "preference" of a particular rating site/ list they don't like and decide to consciously make a change. People complaining that Houdini engines are not included in the CCRL won't help but only empowers the CCRL with false sense of importance in computer chess.

Cheers.

[Prima]

Just to add to my post, since late 2008, I have not looked at the CCRL rating lists. It's data are untrue and biased and therefore worthless.

[MichaelIsGreat]

Hello to All,


LET ME EXPLAIN YOU HOW AN APPARENTLY NOT VERY SERIOUS ACT OF DISHONESTY DO CHANGE COMPLETELY THE VERACITY OF ALL THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY CCRL IN THEIR CCRL CHESS ENGINE RATING LISTS!!

But first, great to hear from you, Robert Houdart, the great Belgian guy who is the programmer of Houdini 1.5. You surely did a great job with Houdini 1.5!
---Robert, you say:
"The CCRL are very much entitled to decide what engines they include in their rating list."
YES BUT ...
... BUT ONLY IF THE PEOPLE DECIDING WHICH CHESS ENGINES TO TEST AT CCRL ARE CAPABLE OF DECIDING FAIRLY WHICH CHESS ENGINES TO SELECT FIRST FOR TESTING!! THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY ARE NOT, AS THIS DISHONEST GUY RAY HAS PROVED TOO WELL!!
And that is the BIG problem with the CCRL chess engine rating lists! The people deciding which chess engines to select for testing, these people are not honest at all, they DO HAVE a hidden agenda of avoiding selecting strong chess engines that might lower the rating of their favorite, pet chess engines!!
---THAT SIMPLE BUT DECEPTIVE AND DISHONEST BEHAVIOUR IN THE DISHONEST WAY THEY SELECT CHESS ENGINES TO TEST RENDERS ALL THE CCRL CHESS ENGINE RATING LISTS COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE, COMPLETELY USELESS AND BASICALLY COMPLETELY FALSE. WHY THAT?
Because what prevents any of the dishonest people at CCRL to also falsify the result of a test that they would have just received only because it has lowered the rating of their pet chess engines?!! After all, they already dishonestly select chess engines to test with the hidden agenda of avoiding testing chess engines that are too strong and therefore that might compromise the rating of their pet chess engines!!!
---This story shows one very important lesson.
This dishonest behaviour at CCRL of dishonestly avoiding selecting for testing chess engines that are too strong to protect the rating of their pet chess engines seems not to be a big act of dishonesty at first examination. But in reality, it is in fact a huge problem for CCRL because it does influence the entire results of the CCRL chess engine rating lists in such a way as to render them completely unreliable and completely useless!!
Moreover, it forces us to question the honesty of the tests that they have produced.
CONCLUSION:
The CCRL chess engine lists are COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE and basically their results are dishonest! END OF THE STORY!


I would like to emphasize on particular point. Most people do not have the time, the resources or the intellectual curiosity to test the strength of the chess engines that they select. They simply want to know which ones are the best and they select their chess engine based on the first best ones that they heard of. WHERE DO THEY GO TO CHECK WHICH CHESS ENGINES ARE THE BEST?! THEY CHECK THE CHESS ENGINE RATING LISTS ON THE INTERNET, AS THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON THIS MATTER OF THE STRENGTH OF THE CHESS ENGINES. I have clearly proven that they are not at all, at least for a few of them. For instance, for the CCRL and CEGT chess engine rating lists, they are completely dishonest and basically worth putting in the dustbin!!
When one chess engine rating list does not want to test a strong chess engine like Houdini 1.5, you know that they have a hidden agenda and that basically all the hard work that people did for them of testing other chess engines is rendered completely useless and unreliable by only a few dishonest people acting with their own agenda!!


More on this matter. The programmer of Rybka 4 (Vasik Rajlich, another great guy) has said on the various forums on his web site that he did not participate to the latest World Chess Software Championship (WCSC) for various reasons. To kind of justify his lack of participation, he also said that this type of tournament (the WCSC) could not assess clearly the strength of the chess engines that compete in it simply because they play against each other too few matches! And he is right. VASIK RAJLICH THEN SAID THAT IF ONE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHICH CHESS ENGINES ARE THE STRONGEST, THE CHESS ENGINE RATING LISTS ARE THE TRUE BENCHMARK ON THE STRENGTH OF THE CHESS ENGINES. THAT WOULD BE TRUE IF THESE CHESS ENGINE RATING LISTS WERE HONEST AND IF THEY DID NOT HAVE AN AGENDA BY HAVING FAVORITE CHESS ENGINES THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO SEE DETHRONED BY NEW STRONGER CHESS ENGINES!!
This story just to emphasize the fact that the chess engine rating lists have taken such an importance that they are considered by many to be a reliable source of information on the strength of the chess engines available. I have proven that, unfortunately for a few of them, it is not the case at all. And I remind the reader that these chess engine rating lists on the Internet are not many at all; in fact, they are very few contrary to what I have been read!!


Therefore, to provide information on the Internet by claiming that the information provided is accurate is fine as long as it is true! However, TO PROVIDE SUCH INFORMATION WITH THE DECEPTIVE APPEARANCE THAT IT IS ACCURATE INFORMATION WHEN IT IS COMPLETELY DISHONEST AND MISLEADING INFORMATION IS SIMPLY INADMISSIBLE AND SHOULD BE CONDEMNED IN THE HARSHEST TERMS! And that is exactly what the CCRL chess engine rating lists do, they create deceptive CCRL chess engine rating lists! They claim to provide accurate testing and rating of chess engines but they select the chess engines that they test in such a way as to avoid having their favorite, pet chess engines being threatened in any way by a new chess engine that is stronger! THEREFORE, BY ACTING DECEPTIVELY THIS WAY, THE PEOPLE AT CCRL HAVE PRODUCED CHESS ENGINE RATING LISTS THAT ARE COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE, BASICALLY USELESS AND COMPLETELY DISHONEST!
And yet we are told by an honest guy like the programmer of Rybka 4 that the best way to know the strength of chess engines is to rely on these chess engine rating lists found on the Internet! Wrong!
More, again, as it is worth repeating, HOW ON EARTH COULD ONE TRUST THE CCRL CHESS ENGINE RATING LISTS CONCERNING THEIR TESTING RESULTS THAT THEY PROVIDE WHEN THEY GO INTO SUCH LENGTH AS TO DISHONESTLY DISCARD PARTICULAR CHESS ENGINES BASED ON THE FACT THAT THESE PARTICULAR CHESS ENGINES ARE STRONGER THAN THEIR PET CHESS ENGINES?!! How could we keep trusting these people at CCRL to provide readers with accurate data when they are so dishonest?!!


To provide information on the Internet implies a kind of responsibility and ethics. I do not care if the CCRL chess engine rating lists are THEIR chess engine rating lists or someone else’s as long as they produce these CCRL chess engine rating lists with honesty and fairness!! But it is NOT the case!
To provide information on the Internet and to claim that this information is accurate but to basically dishonestly skew this information in such a way as to render it completely inaccurate and useless is the epitome of dishonesty to me. And that is exactly what the people creating the CCRL chess engine rating lists have done and do with their CCRL chess engine rating lists!


Even Vasik Rajlich, the programmer of Rybka 4, would not agree nor would he tolerate such dishonesty from anyone or from the people producing these CCRL chess engine rating lists even if it means keeping his Rybka 4 chess engine at the top because Vasik Rajlich based what he does (create a very strong chess engine) on personal integrity, not on deception.


These comments highlight another problem with the Internet. A lot of people do not have the patience nor the time to try to figure out which information is accurate and which one is not. More, sometimes, they do not even have the basic IT skills to search for the information that they are looking for simply because they are not used to use computers regularly. You see that many times with chess players asking very often very basic questions in forums (how to install a UCI chess engine in Fritz 12, etc.).
Consequently, when information is presented with an appearance of logic and seriousness (a little bit of Statistics concepts thrown into it for instance), many do not know at all whether or not the information presented is reliable or not. And this problem is particularly true for chess engine rating lists such as the CCRL one or the CEGT one that are both completely unreliable even though when you visit their site, you would never ever guess it at first reading.
TO ASSESS THE FACT THAT THE CCRL CHESS ENGINE RATING LISTS ARE COMPLETELY DISHONEST, I HAD TO CONTACT THIS RAY GUY AND DISCOVER THE DISHONEST WAY HE SELECTS THE CHESS ENGINES TO BE TESTED. I, OR ANYONE ELSE, WOULD NEVER EVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THEIR DISHONESTY BY SIMPLY READING THEIR CCRL CHESS ENGINE RATING LISTS!!!


Best Regards to All
MichaelIsGreat

[MichaelIsGreat]

Hello to All,


Unfortunately, most of us do not have the time or the skills to test chess engines. Yet, we surely want to know which chess engine is currently at the top. Therefore, we still have to rely on chess engines rating lists. Consequently, I give you what I consider to be the best chess engines rating lists. They are the best ones for several reasons: they have been done honestly and therefore they are reliable, trustworthy, and most importantly without a hidden agenda of wanting to avoid testing particular strong chess engines in order to keep their pet engines at the top!

I suggest that you stay away from both the CCRL and the CEGT chess engines rating lists! I clearly explained why in my previous posts just above.

I suggest four reliable and trustworthy chess engine rating lists:
1) The G/90mins Ratings (90 MINUTES TO PLAY ALL THEIR MOVES, 2 CORES, PONDER ON, TABLEBASES USED) at http://www.brinan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ ... atings.htm
This web site is outstanding! Highly recommended. Visit in particular the other links on this web site.
2) The IPON-Rating-List (5 MIN/GAME + 3 SEC/MOVE, PONDER ON) at http://www.inwoba.de/ For those more interested at how chess engines perform in quick games.
3) The TCEC (Thoresen Chess Engines Competition) web site (40 MOVES IN 100 MINUTES, THE NEXT 20 MOVES IN 50 MINUTES, THEN FINALLY 20 MINUTES FOR THE REST PLUS 10 SECONDS ADDED PER MOVE AT THIS LAST TIME CONTROL; SIX CORES; TABLEBASES; PONDER TO OFF) at http://www.tcec-chess.org/
This site is outstanding! It should also give you a very good idea of which chess engines are currently the best, as it does several tournaments with the best chess engines available.
Highly recommended.
In particular, check the current tournament for the Division I (that is for the best chess engines in the world) at http://www.tcec-chess.org/div_i.php Very interesting games have been played so far.
4) The SWCR Rating (40 MOVES IN 10 MINUTES) at http://www.amateurschach.de/ Again, for those more interested at how chess engines perform in quick games.

Any chess engine rating list that avoids including the strongest chess engines (in particular Houdini 1.5!!) has basically a hidden agenda of wanting to avoid dethroning their pet chess engines (very often Rybka 4)! It is the case with the CCRL and the CEGT chess engines rating lists!! In such a case, you know that these chess engines rating lists are completely unreliable and nothing less than dishonest!! Avoid them at all costs!!
By carefully selecting dishonestly which chess engines to test and which ones to avoid testing, one could create completely bogus chess engines rating lists that are completely unreliable, with the only goal of keeping at the top someone's pet chess engines that have been dethroned by stronger and more recent chess engines!! Keep that in mind when you decide which chess engines rating lists to visit regularly!


Best Regards to All
MichaelIsGreat

[thorstenczub]

and ?

is that a surprise ?

no.