OpenChess

Chris Whittington wrote:

orgfert wrote:

Chris Whittington wrote:

stvs wrote:

Uly wrote:Prima, I see the issue as you accusing the CCRL of falsifying, modifying and manipulating data just to prove you wrong, THAT is hard to believe.

see also if ccc monitoring the privacy of members, from ccc:
( Yes, it's quite obvious isn't it? I wonder how many are actually the same people using multiple accounts through proxy servers?)

will be a very serious and interesting case from now...

anyone who logs into talkchess has their IP address automatically displayed for all moderators to see. anyone who allows their IP address to be seen by Conkie, and by extension Banks and co needs their head examining imo. you are reminded that one of the reasons Jeremy quit and set up this site was because of serious abuse of this IP information by Banks, Conkie and their friends in CTF. Those guys are paranoid lunatics.

Any admin at this site can see this info too. You forget that Thorsten abused his position as mod to distribute the contents of private conversations to his friends and to fraudulently admit his friends under duplicate accounts on CCC. Yet he is respected here. One may easily conclude that most people here don't really care about IP snooping or abusing mod positions. They only care about whether it is done by their friends or not.

Why are you abusing the forum rules?

Members on OpenChess:
1. Are encouraged to use their real names when registering, although this isn't mandatory
2. May only have one account.

Why are you beating your girlfriend?

Who ever thought there could be so much drama in computer chess?!

orgfert wrote:

Prima wrote:Thanks Jeremy.

I know it's good to get to the bottom-line of the matter. The fact is dates, time, and an entire data are easily modified and manipulated.

Best,
Prima.

I don't know why anyone would credit CCRL in the first place. I don't like their methodology regardless of whether there's an agenda (I don't credit the accusation, BTW. None of 'em smart enough to work one out) -- ripping out native books, forcing alien books, removing TBs and pondering strategies from of the mix, etc. Testing programs like that may make it easy for the testers, but for objective evaluation of the total product, it blows chunks.

Try thinking through the consequences of the objections you make, in regards to constructing a rating list, and
get back to me on that. Ease for the testers is not the only concern and, in fact, a small concern.

Adam Hair wrote:

orgfert wrote:

Prima wrote:Thanks Jeremy.

I know it's good to get to the bottom-line of the matter. The fact is dates, time, and an entire data are easily modified and manipulated.

Best,
Prima.

I don't know why anyone would credit CCRL in the first place. I don't like their methodology regardless of whether there's an agenda (I don't credit the accusation, BTW. None of 'em smart enough to work one out) -- ripping out native books, forcing alien books, removing TBs and pondering strategies from of the mix, etc. Testing programs like that may make it easy for the testers, but for objective evaluation of the total product, it blows chunks.

Try thinking through the consequences of the objections you make, in regards to constructing a rating list, and
get back to me on that.

Maybe the ECF, FIDE, et al should get back to you too. The members on their rating lists might benefit from a lobotomy too.

orgfert wrote:

Adam Hair wrote:

orgfert wrote:

Prima wrote:Thanks Jeremy.

I know it's good to get to the bottom-line of the matter. The fact is dates, time, and an entire data are easily modified and manipulated.

Best,
Prima.

I don't know why anyone would credit CCRL in the first place. I don't like their methodology regardless of whether there's an agenda (I don't credit the accusation, BTW. None of 'em smart enough to work one out) -- ripping out native books, forcing alien books, removing TBs and pondering strategies from of the mix, etc. Testing programs like that may make it easy for the testers, but for objective evaluation of the total product, it blows chunks.

Try thinking through the consequences of the objections you make, in regards to constructing a rating list, and
get back to me on that.

Maybe the ECF, FIDE, et al should get back to you too. The members on their rating lists might benefit from a lobotomy too.

I am asking for a coherent argument. It is easy to lob out criticism and insults. That is how most people go about
dismissing others. What would be much more enlightening are well thought out counterpoints to what I am about to
write.

1) Engine books are used in computer chess tournaments, actual competitions between engine authors. Your reference
to FIDE and ECF would apply to this scenario. It is irrelevant to rating lists. The SWCR, IPON, CEGT, and CCRL do not
use engine books because the goal is to find the strength of each engine, not engine+book.

2)The "alien" books you refer to are forced on every engine. The purpose is to create a balanced position for the
engines to begin play. Whether or not balanced opening positions are achieved is another question.

3) TBs are not removed in general. The question of whether TBs improve Elo has been tested in some cases, but
the CCRL ( and the other rating groups, I think) uses TBs.

4)On ponder strategies, when comparing the various rating lists it does not appear to affect the relative rankings
much whether ponder is on or off. And ponder off allows more games to be played and more engines tested.

5) One thing not explicitly named but is a part of the "total product" is learning. To test a engine for the purpose of
determining its Elo rating when learning is on creates problems. If an engine is continually changing, then the
comparision of different engines' results against that engine has little meaning. Bayeselo assumes that each
engine has an unchanging true Elo. If an engine is changing, then its true Elo is changing. Several engines with
learning on would make any rating list constructed more inaccurate than it already is.

6) Each rating list is an attempt at something approaching a scientific measurement of engine strength. How close
the approach comes is open to opinion. In each case, there is an attempt to eliminate sources of variation.
Sometimes there are some trade offs ( more testers allow for more games and engines but creates more statistical
noise), but at least there is some idea of each engine's strength ( there are many more that should be been tested).

Prima wrote:

Uly wrote:

Prima wrote:The fact is dates, time, and an entire data are easily modified and manipulated.

It's also a fact that these happen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

Hardly.

What is so confusing (or false recall) about Naum4.1 and DS12 actually surpassing Rybka 2.3.2a in its late reign? Released in 2009, both DS12 and Naum4.1's (released in 1/10/2010?) performance over Rybka2.3.2a was not listed in their CCRL list until later in 2010. The fact that Naum4.1's and DS12's good performance over Rybka2.3.2a were not listed in 2009's /early-mid 2010 lists - which would have been relevant at that time-frame, is the issue.

Take care Uly (Vytron).

Prima,

Which CCRL list are you refering to and are you talking about 1 CPU, 2 CPU, or 4 CPU versions? If you look at the various
lists available at CCRL, you will see that, depending on the conditions, the results differ. Also keep in mind that there
is a lag between the release of an engine and when it gets tested by the CCRL. And it may get not get tested under all
of the various conditions at the same time. Taking your recollection to be true, there are multiple reasons why you
could have seen the ratings you saw and the ratings as they are now without involving some conspiracy.

Adam Hair wrote:

orgfert wrote:

Adam Hair wrote:

orgfert wrote:

Prima wrote:Thanks Jeremy.

I know it's good to get to the bottom-line of the matter. The fact is dates, time, and an entire data are easily modified and manipulated.

Best,
Prima.

I don't know why anyone would credit CCRL in the first place. I don't like their methodology regardless of whether there's an agenda (I don't credit the accusation, BTW. None of 'em smart enough to work one out) -- ripping out native books, forcing alien books, removing TBs and pondering strategies from of the mix, etc. Testing programs like that may make it easy for the testers, but for objective evaluation of the total product, it blows chunks.

Try thinking through the consequences of the objections you make, in regards to constructing a rating list, and
get back to me on that.

Maybe the ECF, FIDE, et al should get back to you too. The members on their rating lists might benefit from a lobotomy too.

I am asking for a coherent argument. It is easy to lob out criticism and insults. That is how most people go about
dismissing others. What would be much more enlightening are well thought out counterpoints to what I am about to
write.

1) Engine books are used in computer chess tournaments, actual competitions between engine authors. Your reference
to FIDE and ECF would apply to this scenario. It is irrelevant to rating lists. The SWCR, IPON, CEGT, and CCRL do not
use engine books because the goal is to find the strength of each engine, not engine+book.

Human rating lists are of the complete chess player, which includes memorized openings and endgames as well as learning.

Adam Hair wrote:2)The "alien" books you refer to are forced on every engine. The purpose is to create a balanced position for the
engines to begin play. Whether or not balanced opening positions are achieved is another question.

Most human rating lists are not composed of such events.

Adam Hair wrote:3) TBs are not removed in general. The question of whether TBs improve Elo has been tested in some cases, but
the CCRL ( and the other rating groups, I think) uses TBs.

Ok.

Adam Hair wrote:4)On ponder strategies, when comparing the various rating lists it does not appear to affect the relative rankings
much whether ponder is on or off. And ponder off allows more games to be played and more engines tested.

Again, for the convenience of the tester. But in principle, this should not be done at all for reasons listed below.

Adam Hair wrote:5) One thing not explicitly named but is a part of the "total product" is learning. To test a engine for the purpose of
determining its Elo rating when learning is on creates problems. If an engine is continually changing, then the
comparision of different engines' results against that engine has little meaning. Bayeselo assumes that each
engine has an unchanging true Elo. If an engine is changing, then its true Elo is changing. Several engines with
learning on would make any rating list constructed more inaccurate than it already is.

I take this means Bayeselo cannot rate humans since they are dynamic, learning entities. If a program is written to be like a human, dynamic, its benefits will be concealed by this flawed testing. My analogy to human rating practices remains apropo. A program is a chess player and its strength is composed of design elements that are then arbitrarily turned off by testers. This is grossly incorrect.

Adam Hair wrote:6) Each rating list is an attempt at something approaching a scientific measurement of engine strength. How close
the approach comes is open to opinion. In each case, there is an attempt to eliminate sources of variation.
Sometimes there are some trade offs ( more testers allow for more games and engines but creates more statistical
noise), but at least there is some idea of each engine's strength ( there are many more that should be been tested).

This approach fundamentally destroys many design elements of a computer chess player's strength. Even if you discover that specific elements tend to make little difference, you are blinding the test to potentially effective strategies when they arrive in newer, more innovative versions.

Therefore, testing should be careful to include all design elements in a system for evaluation, whether they are deemed to differentiate or not. This is a fundamental principle that should never be violated.

orgfert wrote:
The culture of this website has CCC bashing as an active ingredient. You do it. Others do it. None of you seem to have minded when Thorsten posted contents of the CCC mod forum to his friends and fellow CCC members to whom that forum was confidential. This is public knowledge and not a secret. It is public knowledge that Thorsten tried to get duplicate accounts for his friend, Chris Whittington under the fake name Klaus Fichte. But nobody here cares about that. They insult Banks and Conkie, but respect Thorsten. This hypocrisy is part of Open Chess culture.

I don't think Banks, Conkie or Czub should EVER be mods, but they were elected by the members under the rules, and the rules dictate that only the members have the power to do anything about it.

you would do me a big favour if you would not put my name in the context with names likes
banks, conkie or hull.

klaus fichte is no fake name.
maybe you should do a better research on this topic.

thorstenczub wrote:

orgfert wrote:
The culture of this website has CCC bashing as an active ingredient. You do it. Others do it. None of you seem to have minded when Thorsten posted contents of the CCC mod forum to his friends and fellow CCC members to whom that forum was confidential. This is public knowledge and not a secret. It is public knowledge that Thorsten tried to get duplicate accounts for his friend, Chris Whittington under the fake name Klaus Fichte. But nobody here cares about that. They insult Banks and Conkie, but respect Thorsten. This hypocrisy is part of Open Chess culture.

I don't think Banks, Conkie or Czub should EVER be mods, but they were elected by the members under the rules, and the rules dictate that only the members have the power to do anything about it.

you would do me a big favour if you would not put my name in the context with names likes
banks, conkie or hull.

klaus fichte is no fake name.
maybe you should do a better research on this topic.

You're not different than them in abusing the mod position. Whatever the other qualities may be, none of you can be trusted to be fair, objective or even-handed as a moderator.

its the job of the moderators, if a user has a problem logging in, to make sure he can log in.
in that time, there was a hidden secret admin, working behind the scene, even without informing the moderators. he banned members without telling the moderators he is doing so.
of course that came out later. but in that time the user asked for help, because he cannot log in,
it was not known.

this secret admin censoring the forum had no mandat by the participants.
while the moderators were elected to make sure the interests of the members comes through.
the secret admin was hired by the owner to make sure the interests of the owner comes through.

there is a contradiction/fight between the interests of the owner and the interests of the members, represented by the democratically elected moderators.
As the history of CCC has shown, the owner was interested in taking over the club and control the content of it. therefore he hired certain kind of people. one of them was Sam Hull.

open chess allows the computerchess friends to discuss issues without despotic admins
or owner-interests censoring the content or banning people for manipulation issues.

this is the reason open chess is not in an interest conflict like
css forum, hiarcs forum, CCC or rybka forum.

all those forums have the interest to satisfy the owner of the forums.
they have an intention to direct the content and the participants into an area
that deals their purpose.

open chess has the idea to give the participants/members a platform, uncensored,
for exchanging pluralistic opinions without abuse of skinner, conkie, hull or banks , williamson, friedel or any other person.

there is a long history in computerchess to be exploited by people for commercial reasons.
ICCA e.g. and its board was always part of this "business".