Re: when a daily tester should review his tests

[Sedat Canbaz]

Between one who makes promises when he loses credibility at each tournament and the other who claims the paternity of engines whose source codes he does not know how to modify, we understand why they are in contact

Hey Chameleon,

What are talking about..? what kind of promises?

Yes...that's true I am contact with Mr. Anton
But all our comments are publicly available...
Exception with RapTora's author, I'm contact also
With many other chess friends as well, so what?
Did I make mistake? correct Me please if I'm wrong..

Meanwhile, about some of the rest issues,
Sorry to say again, once more we noticed:
Really..you are far away to be as expert!
And you are not professional for sure...!

Do you know why? there are many reasons, e.g
You make BIG double standards to rest authors!!

And if you have a little bit honesty...then I suggest you:
Re-check, re-read all my tours...otherwise not fair..!!
Note also that Marco's engines are out of credibility!!
I assume you know why...if not M.Z does not deserve it!

Continuing...

Just in case of new credibility point stats calculations,
You can start checking e.g with these Championships:
Btw, also not so bad idea..to check all other my tours!
E.g which are as book tours, non-learning engines etc.
Just talking over exp files..would not be so much boring?

Anyhow, here are the ones, at least with Eng Learning:
Btw, as I stated before, Stability is the most part..so
Do not forget e.g in case of new credibility calculations
E.g Eman is not stable (via high number of concurrent..)

Eman 8.91: Winner of SCCT (2m+1s) NNUE Championship XXXIV

RapTora 2.2: Winner of SCCT (1m+0.6s) NNUE Championship XXXIII

RapTora 2.2: Winner of SCCT (1m+1s) NNUE Championship XXXII

Raubfisch X48e: Winner of SCCT (2m+1s) NNUE Championship XXI

Eman 6.91+SugaR AI 1.40: Winners of SCCT (3m+2s) Handicapped CS II

Eman 6.91: Winner of SCCT (3 min) NNUE Championship IV

By the way, (about Duel match: StockfishMZ vs ProteusSF)
What a joke)), you made BIG mistake: giving wrong points!
I mean e.g such as highest points as credibility: 92
Come on..1st. 400 games (per player) is not BIG data!
You are not aware of that?? error margin can be too high!!
Plus, bad idea...comparing only two players each other!!
Much better stats, if you check vs many players...!!
At least I can say: we noticed, StockfishMZ + Eman exp
How was buggy..in case of various test conditions...
If not clear, StockfishMZ lost many games in 22 moves!
Do you understand? and now...plus StockfishMZ lost..
And frankly I never seen a buggy one to get best points!

On other hand, there are better and stable chess engines,
Where you underestimated their work..well-done to you!!

And sorry to say again and again, so far
You are hopeless man..how many times you proved to be so!
If still not so clear:
Start to 'learn'...start to say 'sorry'...start to say 'thanks'
Start to be 'honest'..start to produce 'quality database' etc.
In other words,
Start to be a good human, but it's all in your hands..not in mine..
And please just do not get me wrong: I am trying to help you !

[Sedat Canbaz]

Deeds is not going to send anything, he just evades the challenges. It does not send me exp.cpp and modified exp.h... It does not send its experience file for a duel against books.

This living being is a waste of time.

Of course, Chameleon will not share both exp files.
Because, it will be clear his recent test is valid or not...

As you said, plus ZamChess, and I agree with both of you
A lot of noise, waste of time for nothing..sad but true..!

Greetings

[deeds]

It's amazing how different the view of learning engines is between daily testers and engine's trainers :



I doubt any engine's trainer will ever again waste time gauging where the learning engines stand in relation to the SF16...

Long live amateurs

[deeds]

When Sedat started with 100% credibility :

Hey DeeDs, look at this :


Sedat, the most incredible tester of learning engines !

But it's his choice to damage himself his credibility tourney after tourney by committing the same mistakes again and again. And still you are nice to have listed only few of samples otherwise his credibility would be even weaker. I think we can save our time/energy by ignoring the daily testers who have no knowledge/skill in learning engines.

[deeds]

...You was banned at least 2 (two) times by Marco...

No, at least banned 3 times but OCF's bans are useless because :
- I have no problem going at OCF when I want to get an OCF's file by myself
- From DeeDs to Chris via Unofficial I have always been in contact with MZ
- Several OCF's members can regularly send me specific OCF's files
- My methods are still present at OCF like
training's method on fishtest conditions
exchange about training's methods
training's method with books
etc.

[deeds]

Otherwise, Depth4_Deeds book would be ranked much higher!

As i don't create books, i asked to several book's creators and they explained to me that :

"the lower the Sedat's depth4_deeds book ranks on his site, the more it demonstrates his incompetence to create books even from quality games."

So then I asked them if they had already sent one of their books to SCCT, here are their answers :

"Unfortunately yes i did this mistake (2010), i didn't know Sedat enough...
but when i checked my games, i discovered his conditions were like a giant pool of blunders where the winning book is the one that won the lottery !
Never again !"

"yes like many (2015)... there are too many draws, no interest from startpos in computer chess era..."

I don't asked Conrog about SCCT's conditions but he already said :

I never look after bullet games on 1 thread (1 minute+0.5s games) because those time controls create lots of blunders. For exemple just looking to games losed by OPTIMUS, I found 4 lost games with big blunders...

source

[deeds]

...I do not trust to your testings...

But in terms of learning engines, your opinion has been totally ignored since May 2, 2021.
In terms of testing learning engines, your credibility has been in freefall since May 22, 2022.

What everyone already knows in terms of :

Engines trained
Sedat = 0 engine
DeeDs = 6 engines (Aurora, BrainLearn, Eman, HypnoS, JudaS, Shashchess)

Openings learned by engines
Sedat = 0 opening
DeeDs = >280 openings

learning sessions completed
Sedat = 0 session
DeeDs = 10 sessions (11th in progress)

Tools coded and shared with Chess community
Sedat = 0 tool
DeeDs = 28 tools (with 16 tools for editing experience data)

Learning engines settings tested
Sedat = 1 setting (Experience MultiPV @ 17/07/2023)
DeeDs = 8 settings (Experience MultiPV @ 12/12/2021, Automatic Time Management, Experience Book, Experience Book Min Depth, Experience Book Eval Importance, Experience Book Max Moves, Self Q-learning, MCTS Multi)

[deeds]

Knowledge on learning engines/features shared with Chess community
Sedat = 0 page
DeeDs = 16 pages (train your engines..., personal experience...)

Own experience files shared with Chess Community
Sedat : 0 file
DeeDs : 6 files (22pieces_d14.exp, Depth12_2205.exp, 22pieces_d10.exp, Depth43_0906.exp, Depth12_1110.exp, Depth43_1110.exp)

[deeds]

When Sedat wished for more OCF's dumps :

...What a show )) and ended in less than 5 days...

And now Sedat is going back to OCF

[deeds]

"the lower the Sedat's depth4_deeds book ranks on his site, the more it demonstrates his incompetence to create books even from quality games."

It should stay true for a very loooooong time

The whole AlexChess cheaters crew reunites at OCF :
- StockfishMZ sabotage
- experience file renaming
- fake tourneys with engines on training mode
- congratulations of cheaters
- concurrent writes on unique file
- conformity with experience < 50%
- hypocrisy between unbanned and moderation