OpenChess

thorstenczub wrote:you have no clue concerning don dailey.
you speak about him as if he is ossi weiner or matthias wüllenweber.
don is a completely different type of person.

he is there to do computerchess. he ever was. and he contributed much.

i would not relate him with rajlich.

In the little personal correspondence I've had with Don Dailey, I found him to be very nice. However, if you've read any of his talkchess posts about IPPOLIT, it should be clear that he has very strong prejudices against it, based mostly on conjecture. This was all I was referring to -- if you think that he'd be happy to send promotional software to a rating list which also tested IPPOLIT-derived engines, then I'll take your word for it.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

thorstenczub wrote:you have no clue concerning don dailey.
you speak about him as if he is ossi weiner or matthias wüllenweber.
don is a completely different type of person.

he is there to do computerchess. he ever was. and he contributed much.

i would not relate him with rajlich.

In the little personal correspondence I've had with Don Dailey, I found him to be very nice. However, if you've read any of his talkchess posts about IPPOLIT, it should be clear that he has very strong prejudices against it, based mostly on conjecture. This was all I was referring to -- if you think that he'd be happy to send promotional software to a rating list which also tested IPPOLIT-derived engines, then I'll take your word for it.

Actually I see that he has agreed to send an unreleased Komodo to TCEC, which also runs Ivanhoe and Houdini. I retract my previous comment, no character assassination intended, but I don't retract the overall sentiment that the promise of privileged access to software informs the exclusionary politics of the rating lists.

Jeremy

BB+ wrote:Things aren't as bad as they once were. TalkChess is (at least currently) not censoring it.

Let's not forget how one mod who also happens to be a Rybka beta tester almost destroyed that site until the new mod team got in. It's only a matter of time before the "right" mod gets in again. I haven't logged in there since June, perhaps I will again if there's something really interesting.

There might be a structural problem there. Funny, one time I mistakenly went to a sub-forum (hidden from the public), where you'll find the most homophobic, racist, and bigoted-toned nonesense spewed, and posted a science article. In attempt to be funny, I used the word "anus" in describing a planet. A mod there who is very prone to using foul language, was at this time actually banned from posting on the main forum for bad behaviour, de-activated my account for a week. Come to find out, he has the bottle problem, but there were reports of him seeking help. For the record, am not making light of the problem, though still awaiting an apology -- one of the steps required -- at least George Costanza from a Seinfeld episode thinks so... He also accused me of being a cloner/clone promoter or something of that nature, lol.

So to recapitulate: CCRL (or CEGT) is a pooled league with its own rating list. This could be re-phrased as saying it's a bunch of individual testers, each with his own "league", who then merge together their results to make a meta-rating list. So then, why stop there in doing this meta-operation? Why not include CEGT or SWCR in with CCRL results? If FIDE doesn't have separate ratings for "separate conditions", why should computer chess? [The CCRL statement "We thought that our hobby would be more meaningful if we combined our results by being part of a group" begs the question: why not pool your results more widely?]. As has been pointed out in other places the "standard conditions" of these leagues can often be rather lacking in uniformity across testers (such as benchmarking to find out what "40/40" on a given computer means). The current situation seems to be one where you are either in a CCRL/CEGT "circle" or you're not, and such decisions seem more based on social aspects (or even the politics of exclusion) rather than anything else.

What you are saying is that different hardware used by different testers matter. For example 40/40 on a i7 machine is not the same on Core 2 Duo. So why not combine all results including those from other websites you ask? Not a bad idea at all since essentially what they are doing is the same, but at a much smaller scale. A third party might have to realize your idea.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote: I suspect that this is probably a bit unfair. I doubt that there is a direct relationship between Rybka and CCRL (maybe a couple of CCRL testers are Rybka beta testers, but that's not really a big deal). However, I am willing to wager that CCRL testers haven't had to dole out much, if any, money on the commercial chess engines they test, and that they have access to unreleased (tournament-variant or beta) versions of many other engines. And that they cherish the relationships which feed this aspect of their hobby, as well as the sense that they occupy an important place in the community at large. I don't think that this is limited to Rybka, though. Testing unvetted engines would most definitely piss off the Rajlichs, [retracted], etc. and that might be it for the promotional consideration they receive. They're just protecting their privileges.

Honestly, I don't think the assesment was unfair or out-of-line -- put in context, this has nothing to do with vetted or unvetted chess engine because if such was the case, Rybka would not be on their list of engines. Yes, it has to do with protecting privilege of getting to test Rybka and getting a free copy. But also, there definitely is an emotional attachment. They hold the view Rybka sales will be hurt if it is no longer the engine on top of their list -- an opinion they've expressed. An independent tester's job is to provide data; not to promote a particular engine. You were part of the mod team that included one of these Rybka testers, do you think he holds an independent position or has an emotional attachment? No answer needed!

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

thorstenczub wrote:you have no clue concerning don dailey.
you speak about him as if he is ossi weiner or matthias wüllenweber.
don is a completely different type of person.

he is there to do computerchess. he ever was. and he contributed much.

i would not relate him with rajlich.

In the little personal correspondence I've had with Don Dailey, I found him to be very nice. However, if you've read any of his talkchess posts about IPPOLIT, it should be clear that he has very strong prejudices against it, based mostly on conjecture. This was all I was referring to -- if you think that he'd be happy to send promotional software to a rating list which also tested IPPOLIT-derived engines, then I'll take your word for it.

Actually I see that he has agreed to send an unreleased Komodo to TCEC, which also runs Ivanhoe and Houdini. I retract my previous comment, no character assassination intended, but I don't retract the overall sentiment that the promise of privileged access to software informs the exclusionary politics of the rating lists.

Jeremy

i met don dailey in netherland when we participated at the aegon tournament .

http://www.thorstenczub.de/aegon.html


but of course i knew his programs and activities lot earlier, because we all followed his contributions.
he was involved in many chess projects in the many years he is in the scene. and he is a good guy.
to speak in an image : i would even lend him my car, if he would need it.

i guess in the few postings in CCC he was upset. And i think we all from time to time are out of balance and i do tolerate this as a normal human behaviour. that from time to time somebody is not balanced and somehow outside himself.

Gargamel wrote:

kingliveson wrote:Oh and how long will it take for this thread to be deleted?

no long time in fact, you're right, the topic is already deleted !

i couldnt imagine in 21 century someone could stop ppl just only to name something ....a new record of fascism.
imagine the scenario: after rybka 1,2,3,4 ippo,houdini,new der. of them(?) engine x, engine y, engine z etc
then the censorship forums must search the genealogic tree of the new egnine !!! what silly

kingliveson wrote:Honestly, I don't think the assesment was unfair or out-of-line -- put in context, this has nothing to do with vetted or unvetted chess engine because if such was the case, Rybka would not be on their list of engines. Yes, it has to do with protecting privilege of getting to test Rybka and getting a free copy. But also, there definitely is an emotional attachment. They hold the view Rybka sales will be hurt if it is no longer the engine on top of their list -- an opinion they've expressed. An independent tester's job is to provide data; not to promote a particular engine. You were part of the mod team that included one of these Rybka testers, do you think he holds an independent position or has an emotional attachment? No answer needed!

That's not Rybka-specific emotion, though. That's the fear of an empty, hobbyless void of a life. If you believe that commerce is the best spur for development in this field of endeavor (debatable, esp. in a borderline research area like computer chess), and you believe that strong open-source engines (or reverse-engineering of amazing 53kr375) persuade potential commercial developers to take their ball and go home (also debatable), and you have nothing else going on in your life, then I guess there's some reason for nursing that fear... I mean, what if there is no Rybka 5?! Do you think you're taking this seriously enough??

Anyway, you and I are on the same page about this, just quibbling.

And slowly but surely, gear lust trumps "principled" objection.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:And slowly but surely, gear lust trumps "principled" objection.

Houdini is "Mainstream" enough for me! I like the work that Robert has done on this engine.

stvs wrote:

Gargamel wrote:

kingliveson wrote:Oh and how long will it take for this thread to be deleted?

no long time in fact, you're right, the topic is already deleted !

i couldnt imagine in 21 century someone could stop ppl just only to name something...

Even more funny is a thread where someone asked which engine was best to cross-check Rybka, and one of the comments was something like (paraphrasing), "the engine is the engine we are not allowed to name," and before you knew it, that portion of his comments were removed. So, you are not even allowed to mention you are not allowed to mention.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:And slowly but surely, gear lust trumps "principled" objection.

So you have access to "the dark-side," I mean "the edge" which requires at least 500 posts..lol. I haven't posted on rybka forum for quite a while now as my tollerance level for intolerance is very low. Silly though to expect more from a commercial web-site. But really, I think most computer chess fans read more than one forum and know what is what. Will history be kind to those who tried to suppress computer chess advancement? Time will tell...

Ted Summers wrote: Houdini is "Mainstream" enough for me! I like the work that Robert has done on this engine.

No doubt!

If anymore proof is needed that CCRL members have emotional attachment to Rybka, all you have to read is comedy on talkchess. Never-the-less, Houdini is now number 1 chess engine in the world wether they like it or not. It is also now clear to most people that these so-called rating lists are nothing but shills for Rybka. Am glad that there are now other lists who are independent.

IPON - BayesElo 0056 result:

List of best single engines, one engine per Author:

     Name                      Elo    +    -   games score oppo.  draws
 
   1 Houdini 1.5              3008   15   15  2200   83%  2735   22%
   2 Deep Rybka 4             2954   11   11  3400   77%  2742   30% 
   3 Stockfish 1.9.1 JA       2899   12   12  2800   71%  2745   35% 
   4 Critter 0.90 SSE42       2892   13   13  2400   70%  2748   35% 
   5 Naum 4.2                 2821    9    9  4500   62%  2740   39% 
   6 Komodo 1.2 JA            2806   10   10  3700   58%  2747   40% 
   7 Deep Shredder 12         2800    8    8  5700   59%  2736   37% 
   8 Gull 1.1                 2791   12   12  2500   55%  2755   37% 
   9 Deep Fritz 12 32b        2779    9    9  4700   56%  2739   38% 
  10 Deep Sjeng c't 2010 32b  2774   12   11  2600   53%  2756   38% 
  11 spark-1.0 SSE42          2752   12   12  2300   50%  2756   39% 
  12 HIARCS 13.1 MP 32b       2731   10   10  3700   48%  2749   37% 
  13 Zappa Mexico II          2713    7    8  7100   49%  2723   38% 
  14 Protector 1.3.2 JA       2701    8    8  5100   45%  2737   38% 
  15 Deep Onno 1-2-70         2685   10   10  3700   41%  2749   38% 
  16 Hannibal 1.0a            2682   11   11  3100   41%  2749   34% 
  17 Deep Junior 12           2681   12   12  2700   40%  2756   30% 
  18 Toga II 1.4 beta5c BB    2670    8    7  6800   42%  2726   39% 
  19 Umko 1.1 SSE42           2632   12   12  2500   32%  2761   35% 
  20 Jonny 4.00 32b           2616   12   12  2800   31%  2756   31% 
  21 Loop 13.6/2007           2614    9    9  5600   34%  2730   35% 
  22 Crafty 23.3 JA           2601   12   12  2900   29%  2761   30% 
  23 Spike 1.2 Turin 32b      2582    8    8  7300   31%  2722   33%