Since the last rating list we can now present six new entrants in the list.
First one out is our new leader in the list: Lc0 0.29.0, and also the first program that has broken the 3600-barrier in our rating list. More games will be needed to lower the error bars, but after the first 297 games it has placed itself 39 points over the last version tested with a huge rating of 3610! It will be interesting to see how it will hold up as more games are played against the top programs. The Lc0-version which we have tested this time is: Lc0 0.29.0, with the 19 filter + 512 block network, named 808544 (date: 2023-01-12). As with the earlier Lc0-versions, we have used the free opening book "perfect2021.abk" by Sedat Canbaz for the testing of Lc0.
Our next newcomer in the list are one really strong comeback from the team of Ed Schroeder and Chris Wittington. Chris Wittington is formely known for programs such as: Chess Player 2150/2175, Complete Chess System and Chess System Tal (I and II). Ed Schroeder is of course known for many of the old dedicated chess computers like for instance: Mephisto Polgar, MM IV/V, RISC (I and II), Rebell and also for versions of his program in the ChessMachine ISA-plugin card for PC. On the PC-scene he has made the Gideon and Rebel-program famous and lately also made several interesting and strong versions of his ProDeo-program.
Since last year they have utilized Neural Net-technology in their joint effort and has seemingly improved fast. We have waited some time to test it, since we wanted it to share most of the functions - like for instance Pondering and Multi-Processor functionality, which the others programs that we test on our latest hardware uses. The version which we have tested is named: Rebel 16.2 and we have used its own opening book, made by the famous Jeroen Noomen, for the testing. After the first 209 games, this strong combo of the program: Rebel 16.2, and the opening book of Jeroen Noomen, has managed to get an impressive rating of 3544 on our 1800X hardware. It is placed 10th in the list at the moment, just 5 points shy of the Stockfish 12-program. A very strong comeback by Ed, Chris and Jeroen!
Our next addition to the list are Jon Dart's strong and reliable Arasan-program. The version that we have tested on our 1800X and Q6600 hardware are Arasan 23.4. On our 1800X hardware it has reached a rating of 3524 after the initial 160 games played. That is at the moment 75 points ahead of the formerly tested 23.01 version and a very nice improvement indeed! More games will of course be needed to lower the error bars a bit. On our Q6600 hardware, Arasan 23.4 has reached a rating of 3439 after 361 games played. We never tested the 23.01 version on the Q6600 hardware, but Arasan 23.4 are a whopping 202 points ahead of the 21.2 version at least! We have, as always, used Arasan's own opening book for the testing.
We are also glad to be able to present a new strong Wasp version by John Stanback, namely Wasp 6.5, on our latest rating list. After the first 242 games played, it has reached a rating of 3433! This is 55 points stronger than the 5.5 version which we tested before, so a nice improvement there also! We have used Wasp's own opening book for the testing.
And we can now finally show the first rating of the manually tested: Phoenix Revelation II Anniversary Edition chess computer by Ruud Martin/DGT. This Anniversary Edition of the Revelation II, features an updated hardware relative to the ordinary Revelation II. The hardware for the Anniversary Edition is an Colibri iMX7D with 2 ARM Cortex A7 processors running at 1GHz. The software which we have used for the testing is the program Komodo 12.1 by Mark Lefler and Larry Kaufman. The rating that has been reached after the first 100 games is 3177! This is a rating that is 253 points ahead of Hiarcs 14.1, which we tested formerly on the ordinary Revelation II. It is clearly the strongest dedicated chess computer which we have tested so far and it has been able to perform admirably against the strong Q6600 opposition which it mostly has faced in our testing so far.
Aside from producing more games with the already mentioned newcomers in the rating list, we are at the moment testing Richard Pijl's - The Baron 3.45, and also Alex Morozov's - Booot 7.1. We also hope to have some more programs ready for the next rating list.
* This rating list was produced and based on the games/results that were finished on the first of May, but the publication of this rating list was unfortunately a bit delayed this time. The testing has of course not stood still since then, and the games/results that has been played since this date will of course feature in the next rating list, which we plan to have out sometime in august/september.
Lars Sandin
Admin, Mclane, mwyoung, Dio, Ipmanchess and Ghppn like this post
Admin Admin
Posts : 2528 Join date : 2020-11-17 Location : Netherlands
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Wed May 24, 2023 10:39 pm
That's a very nice performance, thank you for testing.
Do you still play the games at 40/2h tournament time control?
Ghppn likes this post
Admin Admin
Posts : 2528 Join date : 2020-11-17 Location : Netherlands
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Fri May 26, 2023 1:41 pm
By the lack of answer, assuming the SSDF still plays 40/2h SF hardly made progress after version 12.
Ghppn likes this post
Ozymandias
Posts : 622 Join date : 2020-11-23
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Fri May 26, 2023 3:13 pm
SSDF wrote:
All games have been played on the tournament level, 40 moves/2 hours followed by 20 moves/each following hour. In matches between PC-programs, two separate PCs have been used, connected with an auto232-cable.
What I don't know is what books are used with engines which don't have one and what CPU the 3060Ti enjoys.
Ghppn likes this post
Dio
Posts : 214 Join date : 2021-08-28
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Fri May 26, 2023 7:40 pm
with the GPU used, a relatively up-to-date CPU is certainly used. The CPU used is practically irrelevant in tests with Lc0 when using a graphics card. Only 2 threads are used by default. However, there are "experts" who use 16 threads or more and are then surprised about the poor performance of Lc0.
Ghppn and Lars Sandin like this post
Lars Sandin
Posts : 11 Join date : 2023-05-24
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sat May 27, 2023 6:56 pm
Admin wrote:
That's a very nice performance, thank you for testing.
Do you still play the games at 40/2h tournament time control?
Yes, we are still testing with the same settings/time controls as before, that is 40moves/2h and then 20moves/1h continously.
Admin, Mclane, Dio, Ghppn and kaissa like this post
Lars Sandin
Posts : 11 Join date : 2023-05-24
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sat May 27, 2023 7:40 pm
Ozymandias wrote:
SSDF wrote:
All games have been played on the tournament level, 40 moves/2 hours followed by 20 moves/each following hour. In matches between PC-programs, two separate PCs have been used, connected with an auto232-cable.
What I don't know is what books are used with engines which don't have one and what CPU the 3060Ti enjoys.
We try to get some general advice from the programmer in question when we chose which opening book we use. We have a policy which we try to follow for this part (if a program is released without an own book that is). Here are the guidelines which follows our present policy for testing free engines without an own book and which are released without it's own auto232-compatible GUI:
1. The programmer's wish for a suitable opening book is of course the most prefered choice. If the programmer doesn't want to chose or if we can't get in contact with the programmer, we can chose a general book in this case. 1.1 The opening book must be available for free. We are not allowing private books which are not available for the public. 1.2 As we test all free engines in the freely availble GUI: Arena (3.5.1) - the opening book chosen must be of either .abk or .bin type (or internal that can be accessed by the program). We can't use a .ctg book because that forces us to use a commercial GUI to test the free engine. Someone that want to rerun our tests of a freely available engine should be able to do so without any extra cost. 1.3 The opening book chosen should not have been specifically made for any other engine than the one we test. It's therefore perfectly acceptable to use a dedicated opening book made by someone for a specific engine (like when we test SF), but in that case the book is not suitable for testing any other engine. It must also adhere to 1.1 and 1.2 of course.
Any typo or something missing from the above could be blamed on my memory, as the above mentioned guidelines are directly taken from memory and not from a formerly written prospect.
We are using the 3060Ti graphic card on a 1800X-machine and use 2 threads on the 1800X, but as Dio already mentioned in his informative post, it is relatively unimportant as it is the 3060Ti which do most of the work when testing Lc0 with a dedicated graphic card.
Dio and Ghppn like this post
Lars Sandin
Posts : 11 Join date : 2023-05-24
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sat May 27, 2023 7:48 pm
I forgot to mention that the opening book chosen for the engines should be named in the information to the rating list in which the engine was first introduced.
Dio and Ghppn like this post
Ozymandias
Posts : 622 Join date : 2020-11-23
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sat May 27, 2023 7:57 pm
Better to have that info in the list itself.
Lars Sandin wrote:
We are using the 3060Ti graphic card on a 1800X-machine and use 2 threads on the 1800X, but as Dio already mentioned in his informative post, it is relatively unimportant as it is the 3060Ti which do most of the work when testing Lc0 with a dedicated graphic card.
Most of the work, but not all. If you plug it into one of the Q6600 machines, you'll measure a drop in performance.
Ghppn likes this post
Chris Whittington
Posts : 1254 Join date : 2020-11-17 Location : France
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sat May 27, 2023 8:03 pm
Lars Sandin wrote:
Ozymandias wrote:
SSDF wrote:
All games have been played on the tournament level, 40 moves/2 hours followed by 20 moves/each following hour. In matches between PC-programs, two separate PCs have been used, connected with an auto232-cable.
What I don't know is what books are used with engines which don't have one and what CPU the 3060Ti enjoys.
We try to get some general advice from the programmer in question when we chose which opening book we use. We have a policy which we try to follow for this part (if a program is released without an own book that is). Here are the guidelines which follows our present policy for testing free engines without an own book and which are released without it's own auto232-compatible GUI:
1. The programmer's wish for a suitable opening book is of course the most prefered choice. If the programmer doesn't want to chose or if we can't get in contact with the programmer, we can chose a general book in this case. 1.1 The opening book must be available for free. We are not allowing private books which are not available for the public. 1.2 As we test all free engines in the freely availble GUI: Arena (3.5.1) - the opening book chosen must be of either .abk or .bin type (or internal that can be accessed by the program). We can't use a .ctg book because that forces us to use a commercial GUI to test the free engine. Someone that want to rerun our tests of a freely available engine should be able to do so without any extra cost. 1.3 The opening book chosen should not have been specifically made for any other engine than the one we test. It's therefore perfectly acceptable to use a dedicated opening book made by someone for a specific engine (like when we test SF), but in that case the book is not suitable for testing any other engine. It must also adhere to 1.1 and 1.2 of course.
Any typo or something missing from the above could be blamed on my memory, as the above mentioned guidelines are directly taken from memory and not from a formerly written prospect.
We are using the 3060Ti graphic card on a 1800X-machine and use 2 threads on the 1800X, but as Dio already mentioned in his informative post, it is relatively unimportant as it is the 3060Ti which do most of the work when testing Lc0 with a dedicated graphic card.
I don't really know what book mine uses (will use), all I know is that it's from Ed, called book.bin and is possibly quite widely used, but I've no idea by whom (that's the problem with publicly available books). It has depth and randomiser settings which are arguably unique. Not sure if that would pass your rules?
Mclane and Ghppn like this post
Dio
Posts : 214 Join date : 2021-08-28
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sat May 27, 2023 8:11 pm
I think that only a few people are aware of how much time it takes to play games at this time control (and sometimes, when using board computers, to enter the moves by hand). Thank you very much for your work.
Mclane, Ghppn and Lars Sandin like this post
Dio
Posts : 214 Join date : 2021-08-28
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sat May 27, 2023 8:17 pm
@ozymandias: here I would like to see facts and not "opinions". I have been testing Lc0 for 5 years, both on GPU and CPU only.
Mclane and Ghppn like this post
Ozymandias
Posts : 622 Join date : 2020-11-23
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sat May 27, 2023 9:44 pm
I didn't say how much of a drop. Are you saying there wouldn't be any?
Ghppn likes this post
Lars Sandin
Posts : 11 Join date : 2023-05-24
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sun May 28, 2023 11:18 am
Ozymandias wrote:
Better to have that info in the list itself.
Lars Sandin wrote:
We are using the 3060Ti graphic card on a 1800X-machine and use 2 threads on the 1800X, but as Dio already mentioned in his informative post, it is relatively unimportant as it is the 3060Ti which do most of the work when testing Lc0 with a dedicated graphic card.
Most of the work, but not all. If you plug it into one of the Q6600 machines, you'll measure a drop in performance.
It would of course be the best to have it included in the list, but it isn't possible without footnotes or some kind of hyperlinks. It could be achieved, but it would demand some effort so it would have to be on the "to-do-list" for now, as I have many other things on the same "to-do-list" which aren't fixed. But it is a interesting thought and well worth it I guess!
I never imagined to have the 3060Ti in a Q6600-machine or any of my older machines, but in my mind I silently thought about CPU:s similar to the 1800X and newer ones - and there I would guess that the GPU is the main source of the strength behind the Lc0. I haven't made any tests though, so I don't know for certain how much difference it will make.
Ghppn likes this post
Lars Sandin
Posts : 11 Join date : 2023-05-24
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sun May 28, 2023 11:30 am
Chris Whittington wrote:
Lars Sandin wrote:
Ozymandias wrote:
SSDF wrote:
All games have been played on the tournament level, 40 moves/2 hours followed by 20 moves/each following hour. In matches between PC-programs, two separate PCs have been used, connected with an auto232-cable.
What I don't know is what books are used with engines which don't have one and what CPU the 3060Ti enjoys.
We try to get some general advice from the programmer in question when we chose which opening book we use. We have a policy which we try to follow for this part (if a program is released without an own book that is). Here are the guidelines which follows our present policy for testing free engines without an own book and which are released without it's own auto232-compatible GUI:
1. The programmer's wish for a suitable opening book is of course the most prefered choice. If the programmer doesn't want to chose or if we can't get in contact with the programmer, we can chose a general book in this case. 1.1 The opening book must be available for free. We are not allowing private books which are not available for the public. 1.2 As we test all free engines in the freely availble GUI: Arena (3.5.1) - the opening book chosen must be of either .abk or .bin type (or internal that can be accessed by the program). We can't use a .ctg book because that forces us to use a commercial GUI to test the free engine. Someone that want to rerun our tests of a freely available engine should be able to do so without any extra cost. 1.3 The opening book chosen should not have been specifically made for any other engine than the one we test. It's therefore perfectly acceptable to use a dedicated opening book made by someone for a specific engine (like when we test SF), but in that case the book is not suitable for testing any other engine. It must also adhere to 1.1 and 1.2 of course.
Any typo or something missing from the above could be blamed on my memory, as the above mentioned guidelines are directly taken from memory and not from a formerly written prospect.
We are using the 3060Ti graphic card on a 1800X-machine and use 2 threads on the 1800X, but as Dio already mentioned in his informative post, it is relatively unimportant as it is the 3060Ti which do most of the work when testing Lc0 with a dedicated graphic card.
I don't really know what book mine uses (will use), all I know is that it's from Ed, called book.bin and is possibly quite widely used, but I've no idea by whom (that's the problem with publicly available books). It has depth and randomiser settings which are arguably unique. Not sure if that would pass your rules?
It isn't a problem just because it is widely used as long as it is available for anyone to get/use (often this is the case when the book is included in the package so to speak). As long as the opening book isn't a verbatim copy of some other programs main opening book - like for instance if one copies the dedicated opening book for Arasan or some other program which include its own dedicated opening book - it would be ok. We have for instance used Sedat Canbaz's: Perfect books, for many programs tested in the rating list without any problem. It is of course fun when there are some variations between books, as part of our testing is to test the combination of a dedicated opening book+engine. There are other rating lists that test without opening books and/or with a standard opening book that everyone use, so it's always nice for us when testing different opening books with possibly different ideas/lines.
Ghppn likes this post
Ozymandias
Posts : 622 Join date : 2020-11-23
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sun May 28, 2023 8:53 pm
Lars Sandin wrote:
Ozymandias wrote:
Better to have that info in the list itself.
It would of course be the best to have it included in the list, but it isn't possible without footnotes or some kind of hyperlinks. It could be achieved, but it would demand some effort so it would have to be on the "to-do-list" for now, as I have many other things on the same "to-do-list" which aren't fixed. But it is a interesting thought and well worth it I guess!
I understand there's a lot of books out there, and that succinctly specifying which one you're using may not be feasible. Since you don't want the list to include long lines, an option could be to just add an alias for the book to the engine name in the list, as if it were a parameter, or a network. Then you can write notes outside the list, explaining what version of the book it is, where it can be found and any other useful info you may think of.
Ghppn likes this post
Admin Admin
Posts : 2528 Join date : 2020-11-17 Location : Netherlands
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sun May 28, 2023 9:30 pm
Since day one the SSDF tested engines with books included by the programmer. It's something unique they have.
Mclane, Ghppn and Lars Sandin like this post
Ozymandias
Posts : 622 Join date : 2020-11-23
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Sun May 28, 2023 10:26 pm
I know, I've been following the list for over 15 years, but there were no free notable programs without a book, back then. Now the two main contenders are left to play with unknown books.
Ghppn likes this post
Chris Whittington
Posts : 1254 Join date : 2020-11-17 Location : France
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Mon May 29, 2023 12:36 am
Ozymandias wrote:
I know, I've been following the list for over 15 years, but there were no free notable programs without a book, back then. Now the two main contenders are left to play with unknown books.
NN’s ought not to need a book, their moves should be better than human knowledge. Only real reason for book nowadays is variance
Mclane and Ghppn like this post
Ozymandias
Posts : 622 Join date : 2020-11-23
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Mon May 29, 2023 11:33 am
Variance is right. Lower draw ratios if the book contains unbalanced positions is something testers and developers look for, too.
mwyoung
Posts : 880 Join date : 2020-11-25 Location : USA
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Mon May 29, 2023 5:01 pm
Ozymandias wrote:
Better to have that info in the list itself.
Lars Sandin wrote:
We are using the 3060Ti graphic card on a 1800X-machine and use 2 threads on the 1800X, but as Dio already mentioned in his informative post, it is relatively unimportant as it is the 3060Ti which do most of the work when testing Lc0 with a dedicated graphic card.
Most of the work, but not all. If you plug it into one of the Q6600 machines, you'll measure a drop in performance.
Q6600 is a very old CPU. I have not used that CPU in many years.
I have been using Lc0 since Lc0 have been out. And I could used only 1 thread without any issues.
If you look at the task manage and CPU usage. You can see if any CPU need more threads with Lc0 + GPU.
If you are only using say 6% CPU usage with one thread running Lc0. And you add more threads to Lc0, and it still reads the same CPU usage. Then you do not need any more threads for Lc0. You will gain nothing.
Uri Blass
Posts : 207 Join date : 2020-11-28
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Mon May 29, 2023 8:59 pm
Chris Whittington wrote:
Ozymandias wrote:
I know, I've been following the list for over 15 years, but there were no free notable programs without a book, back then. Now the two main contenders are left to play with unknown books.
NN’s ought not to need a book, their moves should be better than human knowledge. Only real reason for book nowadays is variance
Books can help to save time on the clock. Also if you want to get first place in the SSDF rating list then when you play many games against the same oponnent it is better to learn to repeat lines that you won games with them and avoid lines that you did not win with them.
Uri Blass
Posts : 207 Join date : 2020-11-28
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Mon May 29, 2023 9:10 pm
Since the last rating list we can now present six new entrants in the list.
First one out is our new leader in the list: Lc0 0.29.0, and also the first program that has broken the 3600-barrier in our rating list. More games will be needed to lower the error bars, but after the first 297 games it has placed itself 39 points over the last version tested with a huge rating of 3610! It will be interesting to see how it will hold up as more games are played against the top programs. The Lc0-version which we have tested this time is: Lc0 0.29.0, with the 19 filter + 512 block network, named 808544 (date: 2023-01-12). As with the earlier Lc0-versions, we have used the free opening book "perfect2021.abk" by Sedat Canbaz for the testing of Lc0.
Our next newcomer in the list are one really strong comeback from the team of Ed Schroeder and Chris Wittington. Chris Wittington is formely known for programs such as: Chess Player 2150/2175, Complete Chess System and Chess System Tal (I and II). Ed Schroeder is of course known for many of the old dedicated chess computers like for instance: Mephisto Polgar, MM IV/V, RISC (I and II), Rebell and also for versions of his program in the ChessMachine ISA-plugin card for PC. On the PC-scene he has made the Gideon and Rebel-program famous and lately also made several interesting and strong versions of his ProDeo-program.
Since last year they have utilized Neural Net-technology in their joint effort and has seemingly improved fast. We have waited some time to test it, since we wanted it to share most of the functions - like for instance Pondering and Multi-Processor functionality, which the others programs that we test on our latest hardware uses. The version which we have tested is named: Rebel 16.2 and we have used its own opening book, made by the famous Jeroen Noomen, for the testing. After the first 209 games, this strong combo of the program: Rebel 16.2, and the opening book of Jeroen Noomen, has managed to get an impressive rating of 3544 on our 1800X hardware. It is placed 10th in the list at the moment, just 5 points shy of the Stockfish 12-program. A very strong comeback by Ed, Chris and Jeroen!
Our next addition to the list are Jon Dart's strong and reliable Arasan-program. The version that we have tested on our 1800X and Q6600 hardware are Arasan 23.4. On our 1800X hardware it has reached a rating of 3524 after the initial 160 games played. That is at the moment 75 points ahead of the formerly tested 23.01 version and a very nice improvement indeed! More games will of course be needed to lower the error bars a bit. On our Q6600 hardware, Arasan 23.4 has reached a rating of 3439 after 361 games played. We never tested the 23.01 version on the Q6600 hardware, but Arasan 23.4 are a whopping 202 points ahead of the 21.2 version at least! We have, as always, used Arasan's own opening book for the testing.
We are also glad to be able to present a new strong Wasp version by John Stanback, namely Wasp 6.5, on our latest rating list. After the first 242 games played, it has reached a rating of 3433! This is 55 points stronger than the 5.5 version which we tested before, so a nice improvement there also! We have used Wasp's own opening book for the testing.
And we can now finally show the first rating of the manually tested: Phoenix Revelation II Anniversary Edition chess computer by Ruud Martin/DGT. This Anniversary Edition of the Revelation II, features an updated hardware relative to the ordinary Revelation II. The hardware for the Anniversary Edition is an Colibri iMX7D with 2 ARM Cortex A7 processors running at 1GHz. The software which we have used for the testing is the program Komodo 12.1 by Mark Lefler and Larry Kaufman. The rating that has been reached after the first 100 games is 3177! This is a rating that is 253 points ahead of Hiarcs 14.1, which we tested formerly on the ordinary Revelation II. It is clearly the strongest dedicated chess computer which we have tested so far and it has been able to perform admirably against the strong Q6600 opposition which it mostly has faced in our testing so far.
Aside from producing more games with the already mentioned newcomers in the rating list, we are at the moment testing Richard Pijl's - The Baron 3.45, and also Alex Morozov's - Booot 7.1. We also hope to have some more programs ready for the next rating list.
* This rating list was produced and based on the games/results that were finished on the first of May, but the publication of this rating list was unfortunately a bit delayed this time. The testing has of course not stood still since then, and the games/results that has been played since this date will of course feature in the next rating list, which we plan to have out sometime in august/september.
Lars Sandin
I see no games and I wonder if the leader only won or drew and did not lose a single game. I expect that at some point the SSDF leaders are not going to lose a single game when the only difference between them is going to be in the result that they can beat weaker opponents.
Peter Berger
Posts : 120 Join date : 2020-11-20
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Tue May 30, 2023 12:56 am
Chris Whittington wrote:
NN’s ought not to need a book, their moves should be better than human knowledge. Only real reason for book nowadays is variance
I used to think that, too. I have since changed my mind.
In like the first 15 moves of the game humans (preferrably with a lot of help of computers) are still superior to engines. Look at the nonsense Stockfish comes up with when thinking for a very long time completely on its own - this Berlin game Zukertort-Steinitz, that is clearly just an easy draw.
The cumulated knowledge of mankind is still worth something. The NN engines come pretty close, but they are still lacking.
Once both got some pieces out, humans are toast. But it is still definitely possible to improve on the opening play of NN engines.
Lars Sandin
Posts : 11 Join date : 2023-05-24
Subject: Re: SSDF Rating List 23-05-24 Tue May 30, 2023 8:41 am
Ozymandias wrote:
Lars Sandin wrote:
Ozymandias wrote:
Better to have that info in the list itself.
It would of course be the best to have it included in the list, but it isn't possible without footnotes or some kind of hyperlinks. It could be achieved, but it would demand some effort so it would have to be on the "to-do-list" for now, as I have many other things on the same "to-do-list" which aren't fixed. But it is a interesting thought and well worth it I guess!
I understand there's a lot of books out there, and that succinctly specifying which one you're using may not be feasible. Since you don't want the list to include long lines, an option could be to just add an alias for the book to the engine name in the list, as if it were a parameter, or a network. Then you can write notes outside the list, explaining what version of the book it is, where it can be found and any other useful info you may think of.
I would rather not having the book info in the name because of some reasons:
* The information in the name should be short (due to space constraint), as easy and informative as possible. * An alias/parameter in f.e. character- (AA) or numberformat (01) would mean little for the person that isn't actively seeking up what it stands for. It adds more complexity for very little gain. * We already have some rather redundant information in the names which would be more acute to get rid of (before adding more info that is). The designation x64 is nowadays rather pointless, since nearly every program that we have tested on our Q6600 and 1800X-hardware has been supporting 64 bit on these two platforms (both having 64 bit OS's). It would have been better to exclude x64 now, and add 32-bit to the few that hasn't had support for the standard 64-bit OS. * Other than that I should go through the naming for each and every of the 435 computers and try to standardize them, so that most of them are following the same standard. Not every computer in the list does this today. This would clean up the list a bit.
But I like your general idea, as it would be helpful for me also. I have most used books in memory, but this info isn't that easy to access for other than myself I guess. But it demands some work and as I mentioned earlier, I would rather simplify things (first at least) than to make everything more complex than it already is.
Home 
But it demands some work and as I mentioned earlier, I would rather simplify things (first at least) than to make everything more complex than it already is.