Of course! Critical thinking and unbiased consumers easily "see" the underlying issues and what goes on with Chessbase' operating system. Chessbase also has influence on the CCRL/CEGT test sites. To support this affiliation between Chessbase and CCRL/CEGT, I provided a link to my post in OpoenChess on what I noted, for the year 2008, between Naum 4.1 (or 4.2?), Deep Shredder 12, and Rybka 2.3.2a.Ted Summers wrote:Naum, Gull, Critter, Stockfish, and Houdini all have something in common other than being chess engines. Their successes will never be mentioned on Chessbase.com. Only their defeats will ever make the light of day there. Like Rybka before them, only when they ink a deal with Chessbase will there successes ever make the light of day on the Chessbase Newspages.
I was never able to figure out your claim, particularly for DS12. Here are the CCRL 40/40 numbers:I think Naum 4.x and Deep Shredder12 overtook Rybka 2.3.2a with at least 40 - 50 ELO minimum in 2008 (and this is a conservative figure).
Code: Select all
Rybka 2.3.2a 64-bit 4CPU 3127
Deep Shredder 12 64-bit OA On 4CPU 3126Code: Select all
Rybka 2.3.2a x64 4CPU 3072
Deep Shredder 12 x64 4CPU 3064it is quite common and natural for a company with its own media arm to use that arm to maximise its own revenue stream and, by extension, to minimise competitors. There is not one capitalist controled media channel / forum that doesn't do it. Moral: only associate yourself with fora, magazines etc that are not capitalist controlled.Ted Summers wrote:Naum, Gull, Critter, Stockfish, and Houdini all have something in common other than being chess engines. Their successes will never be mentioned on Chessbase.com. Only their defeats will ever make the light of day there. Like Rybka before them, only when they ink a deal with Chessbase will there successes ever make the light of day on the Chessbase Newspages.