OpenChess

Why was CCRL was removed from Rybka website?

because they announced to test [Ippolit].

I doubt that. You're thinking of CEGT. Why would CCRL test [Ippolit] when it would mean that Graham couldn't get his sweaty hands on the yummy, chocolately C-L-Uuuuu-S-s-s-s-T-E-Rrrrrrrrrr for free, "unbiased", "testing"? Doesn't make sense. CCRL just didn't like being singled out as Rybka's bitch.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=20912

This part was important:

Graham Banks wrote:Unfortunately true, even though it's only one of them.

I think they're going to test Houdini.

Uly wrote:This part was important:

Graham Banks wrote:Unfortunately true, even though it's only one of them.

I think they're going to test Houdini.

I'm almost sure you're right, though Houdini is the one I'd like to see them test the least. The author lies about the origins, simple as that. If Houdart had said it was developed based on Ippo* I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sadly that's not the case.

IvanHoe is better, my only gripe being that a lot of the development happens on a pirate forum and the authors are insane and mildly obnoxious, especially toward commercial engine authors (I have no problem with them being anonymous though).

Fire would also be OK, since Norm openly says that it's developed based on Ippo*.

My 2 cents.

On a different subject, I wonder what Felix Kling is going to do if/when SSDF starts testing Houdini.

Peter

Peter C wrote:

Uly wrote:This part was important:

Graham Banks wrote:Unfortunately true, even though it's only one of them.

I think they're going to test Houdini.

I'm almost sure you're right, though Houdini is the one I'd like to see them test the least. The author lies about the origins, simple as that. If Houdart had said it was developed based on Ippo* I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sadly that's not the case.

IvanHoe is better, my only gripe being that a lot of the development happens on a pirate forum and the authors are insane and mildly obnoxious, especially toward commercial engine authors (I have no problem with them being anonymous though).

Fire would also be OK, since Norm openly says that it's developed based on Ippo*.

My 2 cents.

On a different subject, I wonder what Felix Kling is going to do if/when SSDF starts testing Houdini.

Peter

IvanHoe is not developed on a pirated website, not sure where you are getting that. This is the official website: http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/ and unofficial executables are found here: http://chess.cygnitec.com/engine/ivanhoe/.

I don't have a problem with them testing Houdini. The author was the one that put the most effort in improving the code and it shows by having the strongest derivative around.

I'm just glad that only one is getting tested, it becomes at some point ridiculous to have 6 top engines that are twins, and it would beg the question of if it would be okay if everyone had their flavor compile and get the same engine in all the spots of the top100.

kingliveson wrote:

Peter C wrote:

Uly wrote:This part was important:

Graham Banks wrote:Unfortunately true, even though it's only one of them.

I think they're going to test Houdini.

I'm almost sure you're right, though Houdini is the one I'd like to see them test the least. The author lies about the origins, simple as that. If Houdart had said it was developed based on Ippo* I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sadly that's not the case.

IvanHoe is better, my only gripe being that a lot of the development happens on a pirate forum and the authors are insane and mildly obnoxious, especially toward commercial engine authors (I have no problem with them being anonymous though).

Fire would also be OK, since Norm openly says that it's developed based on Ippo*.

My 2 cents.

On a different subject, I wonder what Felix Kling is going to do if/when SSDF starts testing Houdini.

Peter

IvanHoe is not developed on a pirated website, not sure where you are getting that. This is the official website: http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/ and unofficial executables are found here: http://chess.cygnitec.com/engine/ivanhoe/.

Well, I got the idea from the fact that it seems a lot of development happens on the Immortal Chess site.
Maybe I'm wrong.

Peter

Peter C wrote:

kingliveson wrote:

Peter C wrote:

Uly wrote:This part was important:

Graham Banks wrote:Unfortunately true, even though it's only one of them.

I think they're going to test Houdini.

I'm almost sure you're right, though Houdini is the one I'd like to see them test the least. The author lies about the origins, simple as that. If Houdart had said it was developed based on Ippo* I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sadly that's not the case.

IvanHoe is better, my only gripe being that a lot of the development happens on a pirate forum and the authors are insane and mildly obnoxious, especially toward commercial engine authors (I have no problem with them being anonymous though).

Fire would also be OK, since Norm openly says that it's developed based on Ippo*.

My 2 cents.

On a different subject, I wonder what Felix Kling is going to do if/when SSDF starts testing Houdini.

Peter

IvanHoe is not developed on a pirated website, not sure where you are getting that. This is the official website: http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/ and unofficial executables are found here: http://chess.cygnitec.com/engine/ivanhoe/.

Well, I got the idea from the fact that it seems a lot of development happens on the Immortal Chess site.
Maybe I'm wrong.

Peter

No no, Peter, Immortal is not the development site for IvanHoe, though many fans there do mods.

Does CCRL still do the "engine distance table"? This was asserted as evidence that Rybka was not that close to Fruit (in the face of one of Diepeveen's posts) back in Feb 2006 when this topic was hot. Does anyone know exactly what this list was? Kirill Kryukov apologised for a lack of explanation (at that time) of the correlation numbers and said:

The good point of those correlation stats is that they show objective comparison of engine playing style, derived simply from their games. So it does not depend on disassembling and any subjective observations, but only on the evaulation and moves in the games.

BB+ wrote:Does CCRL still do the "engine distance table"? This was asserted as evidence that Rybka was not that close to Fruit (in the face of one of Diepeveen's posts) back in Feb 2006 when this topic was hot. Does anyone know exactly what this list was? Kirill Kryukov apologised for a lack of explanation (at that time) of the correlation numbers and said:

The good point of those correlation stats is that they show objective comparison of engine playing style, derived simply from their games. So it does not depend on disassembling and any subjective observations, but only on the evaulation and moves in the games.

It can be found on the 40/40 page. Look for the 'Correlation' link at the top of the list.

Here is the link to the Correlation page: http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... ation.html

The data collected is ponder hits ( prediction of the other engine's move ) and position evaluation.

When looking at the ponder hit data for engines of different families, some interesting things can be seen.
Such as the relationship of other engines to Fruit, as well as other engines to Rybka. The same results
appear when analyzing data generated by Don's similarity program.

I am not as certain as to the utility of comparing positional evaluations ( you can judge that much better than I can ),
but a connection between Rybka and Fruit ( and/or Togas ) can be seen.