whats sad is that dorsz and sarona have time to verify BOOK GAMES another thing is that you claim your engine is better whereas you have already specified that its all books playing. you give them the same weak book they win you add their games to yours what do you think its going to happen to all following engines who are still gonna use that pathetic book?....so to me all those tests of yours goes to my rubbish bin. Are you that desperate to win....sad very sad
i have already told you that if you want to see your engine's performance use a suite (i have gave out suites in different forums + another one that i made from playchess games), fresh exp for all that use exp, reverse sides.
bring that engine here and ill test it for you its clear you don't know how to test.
dear D you know i respect you.
Now if you may what exactly are you verifying? That his book is good or has bad lines? Because i would understand if it was engine vs engine but books come on. To me its like taking playchess games or lichess games and say i want to verify these loses or draws....what!
please make me understand what it is that needs your verification dear D.
STARTED A NEW BLITZ 5+0 200 GAMES GAUNTLET AGAINST NO STOCKFISH ENGINES
...But even using Chessbase Dragon 3.2 GUI and Defensive style (because on other free GUIs this proprietary version is weaker, only a DEMO) , ProteusSF-AI is too strong , boring match!
OrgZ wrote: Sat Jan 06, 2024 5:25 pm
dear D you know i respect you.
Now if you may what exactly are you verifying? That his book is good or has bad lines? Because i would understand if it was engine vs engine but books come on. To me its like taking playchess games or lichess games and say i want to verify these loses or draws....what!
please make me understand what it is that needs your verification dear D.
Do I even do it? Since my comment from 18 Dec 2023 I didn't verify anything. You said I have time to verify, but to be honest I don't have much free time and I had nothing to verify. I think my comment in the past was good enough to let you know how the matches look like and what my opinion about it is.
OrgZ wrote: Sat Jan 06, 2024 1:48 pmwhats sad is that dorsz and sarona have time to verify BOOK GAMES another thing is that you claim your engine is better whereas you have already specified that its all books playing. you give them the same weak book they win you add their games to yours what do you think its going to happen to all following engines who are still gonna use that pathetic book?....so to me all those tests of yours goes to my rubbish bin. Are you that desperate to win....sad very sad
i have already told you that if you want to see your engine's performance use a suite (i have gave out suites in different forums + another one that i made from playchess games), fresh exp for all that use exp, reverse sides.
bring that engine here and ill test it for you its clear you don't know how to test.
Happy book games
TR
I am not verifying anything.
His pgns are run through my own scripts and modified versions of pgn-tactics-generator, chess-chiller (to name a few) in order to build candidate epd sets for my database. I do not care if they are book matches, no-book matches, epd/pgn opening matches. The match results are irrelevant for me. The positions are. This data is not used for net training. Internal self-play data is used for that. I did not ask for anything from him. He offered them freely and I accepted. I have told Eduard in private correspondence what I think of those test parameters Alex uses. They are pointless for engine evaluation/superiority.
What is sad is that you are letting him troll you. I have said - more or less - the same thing to Eduard: Carry on with work on your derivatives and ignore senseless statements from people with an undergraduate education. Create something useful for the small group of gamers that enjoy Playchess/Lichess, etc and for a significant amount of others who use these engines for specialized work.
OrgZ wrote: Sat Jan 06, 2024 1:48 pmwhats sad is that dorsz and sarona have time to verify BOOK GAMES another thing is that you claim your engine is better whereas you have already specified that its all books playing. you give them the same weak book they win you add their games to yours what do you think its going to happen to all following engines who are still gonna use that pathetic book?....so to me all those tests of yours goes to my rubbish bin. Are you that desperate to win....sad very sad
i have already told you that if you want to see your engine's performance use a suite (i have gave out suites in different forums + another one that i made from playchess games), fresh exp for all that use exp, reverse sides.
bring that engine here and ill test it for you its clear you don't know how to test.
Happy book games
TR
I am not verifying anything.
His pgns are run through my own scripts and modified versions of pgn-tactics-generator, chess-chiller (to name a few) in order to build candidate epd sets for my database. I do not care if they are book matches, no-book matches, epd/pgn opening matches. The match results are irrelevant for me. The positions are. This data is not used for net training. Internal self-play data is used for that. I did not ask for anything from him. He offered them freely and I accepted. I have told Eduard in private correspondence what I think of those test parameters Alex uses. They are pointless for engine evaluation/superiority.
What is sad is that you are letting him troll you. I have said - more or less - the same thing to Eduard: Carry on with work on your derivatives and ignore senseless statements from people with an undergraduate education. Create something useful for the small group of gamers that enjoy Playchess/Lichess, etc and for a significant amount of others who use these engines for specialized work.
And respect the GPLv3 - which I know you do.
Fantastic Answer and Thank you for the advice dear Sarona
