A Talkchess thread: Misinformation being spread

[Prima]

Members, look here http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 95&t=37562

Clearly my comparison was amongst Naum 4.x, Deep Shredder 12, and Rybka 2.3.2a and not Rybka 3! Some, if not all, would recall both Naum 4.1 or 4.2 and Deep Shredder12 passed Rybka 2.3.2a.
Let's follow the time-line provided by a CCRL tester. Since both DS12 and Naum 4.1 or 4.2 were released in 2009, this would've placed them 2nd to 3rd to Rybka 3. This did not happen. Instead, when Naum 4.x and DS12 overtook Rybka 2.3.2a, they were still placed below Rybka 2.3.2a! Not the current listing excerpt shown in the link CCC link above. Clearly, the current CCRL list posted by a user there was not shown to the public. Even the ELO is still ridiculously skewed. But that's long ago. This is about how CCRL refuses to show engines that are stronger than Rybka. The tactics (if this is even worth calling it one) is to delay the true results of stronger engines than Rybka 2.3.2a till a stronger version of Rybka takes the lead.....then the public can now see the long overdue results that should have been shown at the time of concern. Phew! Somehow, I get the feeling that this CCRL tester feels if things can be twisted to fit what suits their agenda (which we all know what that is) as opposed to actual events that this would make the truth about them go away.

Just so the issue is very clear, why didn't the CCRL show, at the relevant & valid time, Naum 4.x and DS12 overtaking Rybka 2.3.2a? Why wait later just to show it when Rybka 3 later took reign? Of course, I personally don't want answers from them, as this is no longer of relevance in current time period. They can feed the public their "thoughts and perception". And on this, some claim they weren't aware that Naum 4.x and DS12 surpassed Rybka 2.3.2a! Shocked but not surpirse. Maybe it's suiting and easier to blind one's self to the truth when Naum4.x and DS12 overtook Rybka 2.3.2a. I understand....if I was exclusively a "Rybka fan boy", I would turn a blind eye to the truth and even put lies to it.

Maybe the "reason why no one has bothered to correct me since my post of 1 week ago" is because others remember and saw what CCRL was doing when Naum4.x and DS12 finally passed Rybka in ELO?

As for my big, grand agenda, I guess since I don't bow-down and worship & support Rybka exclusively, even to the point of covering the truth about other engines, then I am an outcast with a diabolic agenda. Yes! That must be it.

[Prima]

....when Naum4.x and DS12 finally passed Rybka in ELO?

Before a Rybka fan boy runs off... goes nuts and bananas and then twists my words, I meant to say when Naum4.x and DS12 finally passed Rybka 2.3.2a in ELO?

[Jeremy Bernstein]

....when Naum4.x and DS12 finally passed Rybka in ELO?

Before a Rybka fan boy runs off... goes nuts and bananas and then twists my words, I meant to say when Naum4.x and DS12 finally passed Rybka 2.3.2a in ELO?

Do you have any evidence, beyond your recollection, that CCRL suppressed the performance of Naum 4 and Deep Shredder 12? I was following those lists at the time and don't recall what you're asserting. But I'm only relying on my recollection, as well.

[Prima]

Recent response from the President/CEO of CCRL http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 09&t=37562

If this was the case when Naum 4.1 (or Naum 4.0?) and Deep Shredder 12 outperform Rybka 2.3.2a, this would have placed Naum 4.1 (or 4.x) 1st place and Deep Shreder 12 second place and of course Rybka 2.3.2a in the third....during that time-frame. No one knew Naum 4.1 and Deep Shredder 12 was stronger than Rybka 2.3.2a because at that time-frame, such results were not reflected in the CCRL list. Of course I see why, as a supporter in that very thread claims, but supports my argument, not to have noticed it because such data, that Naum4.1 and Deep Shredder12 surpassed Rybka 2.3.2a, in that time-frame did not exist (my paraphrase here). Here's the direct quote/link

We would have observed that if it happened. But it didn't so there was nothing to observe

.
From here http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97&t=37562

Considering CCRL's method of not showing Naum 4.1 (or 4.x) and Deep Shredder 12 overtaking Rybka 2.3.2a at that time-frame, it's not difficult to see why most people did not observe such event happen. Of course, the "Rybka Fan boys" factor still apply to the equation. It never goes away and remains constant in the equation in this matter which might explain why some either didn't notice Naum 4.1 and DS12 overtaking Rybka 2.3.2a.

The true results of Naum 4.1 or 4.x and Deep Shredder 12's superiority to Rybka 2.3.2a was finally shown but only when Rybka 3 took reign. Before then, Naum 4.1 and Deep Shredder 12, which were above Rybka 2.3.2a but were still shown below Rybka 2.3.2a.

If anyone has an agenda here, it clearly isn't me.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Recent response from the President/CEO of CCRL http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 09&t=37562

If this was the case when Naum 4.1 (or Naum 4.0?) and Deep Shredder 12 outperform Rybka 2.3.2a, this would have placed Naum 4.1 (or 4.x) 1st place and Deep Shreder 12 second place and of course Rybka 2.3.2a in the third....during that time-frame. No one knew Naum 4.1 and Deep Shredder 12 was stronger than Rybka 2.3.2a because at that time-frame, such results were not reflected in the CCRL list. Of course I see why, as a supporter in that very thread claims, but supports my argument, not to have noticed it because such data, that Naum4.1 and Deep Shredder12 surpassed Rybka 2.3.2a, in that time-frame did not exist (my paraphrase here). Here's the direct quote/link

We would have observed that if it happened. But it didn't so there was nothing to observe

.
From here http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97&t=37562

Considering CCRL's method of not showing Naum 4.1 (or 4.x) and Deep Shredder 12 overtaking Rybka 2.3.2a at that time-frame, it's not difficult to see why most people did not observe such event happen. Of course, the "Rybka Fan boys" factor still apply to the equation. It never goes away and remains constant in the equation in this matter which might explain why some either didn't notice Naum 4.1 and DS12 overtaking Rybka 2.3.2a.

The true results of Naum 4.1 or 4.x and Deep Shredder 12's superiority to Rybka 2.3.2a was finally shown but only when Rybka 3 took reign. Before then, Naum 4.1 and Deep Shredder 12, which were above Rybka 2.3.2a but were still shown below Rybka 2.3.2a.

If anyone has an agenda here, it clearly isn't me.

I don't think you have an agenda, but I do think your memory is faulty in this case. Here are the release dates, best I could find with some hasty googling:

Deep Shredder 11, 2 Aug 2008
Rybka 3, 8 Aug 2008
Naum 4, 15 Dec 2008
Deep Shredder 12, 3 Oct 2009

So I don't see any possible way for your assertion to be accurate. First of all, it would have been DS11, not DS12, and second of all, Rybka 3 was out more or less at the same time as DS11. Both would have been tested concurrently, and Naum 4 came along 4 months later.

Jeremy

[Prima]

....when Naum4.x and DS12 finally passed Rybka in ELO?

Before a Rybka fan boy runs off... goes nuts and bananas and then twists my words, I meant to say when Naum4.x and DS12 finally passed Rybka 2.3.2a in ELO?

Do you have any evidence, beyond your recollection, that CCRL suppressed the performance of Naum 4 and Deep Shredder 12? I was following those lists at the time and don't recall what you're asserting. But I'm only relying on my recollection, as well.

Of course you and I, and the public won't see this suppression as the facts simply won't be shown unless you do your own independent tests or just take the authors words for it and do the math....then you would see Naum4.1 passed Rybka 2.3.2a.

Both authors of respective engine stated that they made massive improvement on their engines. I would quote Mr. Naumov as saying an improvement of around 80 - 100+ elo?...which at the time of Rybka 2.3.2a's reign, would indicate it surpass the Rybka 2.3.2a version. Since I don't have that very link/quote of Mr.Naumov, I can't show that. Same thing with DS12, it was soon found based on tests, that it too outperform Rybka 2.3.2a. Therefore, this would have place both Naum (no.2) and Deep Shredder 12 (no.3) to Rybka 3 but definitely above Rybka 2.3.2a. Besides current CCRL lists of this time-fram, did you see that reflected in the CCRL list at that time-frame or period? No. I know I didn't see that either. Makes you wonder "why".

Instead, both Naum4.1 and DS12 were still placed under Rybka2.3.2a at that time-frame! So why has Naum4.1 and DS12 overtaken Rybka 2.3.2a now? It's not like these specific engine-versions would change their initial knowledge from the Rybka 2.3.2a era and decide to overtake Rybka2.3.2a now - as reflected by current excerpts and CCRL lists. Why the discrepancies in the first place?

Unfortunately, I did not save the web page to show as prove but I definitely observed this ranking-placement at that time. But, as minor or simple as this looks, it says more about testers, be it dependent or independent testers.

[Prima]

Recent response from the President/CEO of CCRL http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 09&t=37562

If this was the case when Naum 4.1 (or Naum 4.0?) and Deep Shredder 12 outperform Rybka 2.3.2a, this would have placed Naum 4.1 (or 4.x) 1st place and Deep Shreder 12 second place and of course Rybka 2.3.2a in the third....during that time-frame. No one knew Naum 4.1 and Deep Shredder 12 was stronger than Rybka 2.3.2a because at that time-frame, such results were not reflected in the CCRL list. Of course I see why, as a supporter in that very thread claims, but supports my argument, not to have noticed it because such data, that Naum4.1 and Deep Shredder12 surpassed Rybka 2.3.2a, in that time-frame did not exist (my paraphrase here). Here's the direct quote/link

We would have observed that if it happened. But it didn't so there was nothing to observe

.
From here http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97&t=37562

Considering CCRL's method of not showing Naum 4.1 (or 4.x) and Deep Shredder 12 overtaking Rybka 2.3.2a at that time-frame, it's not difficult to see why most people did not observe such event happen. Of course, the "Rybka Fan boys" factor still apply to the equation. It never goes away and remains constant in the equation in this matter which might explain why some either didn't notice Naum 4.1 and DS12 overtaking Rybka 2.3.2a.

The true results of Naum 4.1 or 4.x and Deep Shredder 12's superiority to Rybka 2.3.2a was finally shown but only when Rybka 3 took reign. Before then, Naum 4.1 and Deep Shredder 12, which were above Rybka 2.3.2a but were still shown below Rybka 2.3.2a.

If anyone has an agenda here, it clearly isn't me.

I don't think you have an agenda, but I do think your memory is faulty in this case. Here are the release dates, best I could find with some hasty googling:

Deep Shredder 11, 2 Aug 2008
Rybka 3, 8 Aug 2008
Naum 4, 15 Dec 2008
Deep Shredder 12, 3 Oct 2009

So I don't see any possible way for your assertion to be accurate. First of all, it would have been DS11, not DS12, and second of all, Rybka 3 was out more or less at the same time as DS11. Both would have been tested concurrently, and Naum 4 came along 4 months later.

Jeremy

Just a quick mistake: DS11 was released, I believe in 2007. Naum 4.1 (released sometime in 2009) and DS12 were released in same year - where the 2 respective versions and engines that first outperformed Rybka 2.3.2a. Between their release dates of 2009 and 2010, they were still placed below Rybka 2.3.2a....until of recent months. Again, I did not save this web page.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

CCRL forwarded me this link: http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/discuss ... f=7&t=5630. Maybe it will help someone.

UPDATE: I just futzed around a bit on archive.org. The CCRL archives stop in Summer 2008, so no luck there. Coincidence... or conspiracy?

Jeremy

[Prima]

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.

[Uly]

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