Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 05:54:13 04/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
In addition to your list below, the auto232 for DOS does not support underpromotion !!! It also reveals some timing problems. IMO, your critics given below is fully justified. It rather refers to the auto232 in general (not particularly to the chessbase implementation). One has to be aware that results of long auto232 matches have to be checked carefully. I agree fully to your points. Regards, Uli On April 17, 2000 at 08:21:25, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: > >I didn’t want to write this post first because I am getting so sick and tired of >the endless autoplayer discussion. I read two post in another forum which made >me pretty angry and upset and distracted me from my work so that I had to do >something. > >In these posts I was accused of being paranoid, having a bad faith and >manipulating to name a few. Of course I don’t like being called that way so I >think I have to explain my point of view again. > >First of all I don’t think that the ChessBase or any other autoplayer is >cheating by sending illegal commands or something similar via the serial cable >to disturb the opponent. I also don’t think that there is manipulation done on >purpose to favour one program over another. > >I hope that no author of any program or autoplayer felt personally attacked by >my statements, but if this were the case I apologize and apply to them to send >me an email to discuss this privately or here if he wishes. > >I do think that there are so many problems with the autoplayer that it is very >easy to get wrong results in a match. To me it is mysterious how one can play a >long series of games without any problems. I also already said that this got >better recently but not so long ago this was impossible for me. Maybe it was my >fault and I was too stupid to set up the autoplayer correctly, but in every >match there were problems. > >I just will give some examples. I won’t name any program but I think I have to >say that I had problems with every autoplayer, not only the one from ChessBase, >including mine. > >· Suddenly a program didn’t move any more. This happend in won, drawn or lost >positions. The game was adjourned with a random result. >· Multiple save game commands were sent with the result that the automatic score >display and the database of the games got messed up. >· No save game command was sent with the same result as above. >· Programs crash, also in won, drawn or lost positions. >· Games were aborted for reasons unknown to me. >· etc. > >So what happens for example to aborted games. First of all one has to notice >that there were problems. Therefore one has to check all the games in the >database and not only add the wins and draws and losses to calculate the >performance. So how many people are checking all the games of the autoplayer? >Even I don’t do that all of the times. And even if you are checking all of the >games manually, what are you doing if there are three identical games in a row. >Is it a multiple save or just the result of book learning on the winning side. > >Another issue is the autoplayer standard itself. For example there is no way to >control the time. It happens quite frequently on my machines that a program >loses on time, even on his own clock, and didn’t get punished for that. What >keeps me from using more time than allowed in an autoplayer match? > >Please don’t answer to this post that I shouldn’t complain so much and design a >new standard instead. > >The testers have to know about the autoplayer problems to try to avoid them. >This is my major concern and the reason why I am bringing this subject up here. >It happened more than one time before that one of the following occurred. > >· One program didn’t play with its optimal settings. You can argue that I can >restrict my program to forbid that, but then I will annoy my customers who want >to fiddle around with the engine options in Shredder. >· The same is true for opening books and endgame databases. >· Of course the two machines have to be identical or at least similar. >· The chess program must be the only running application. I thought at least >this must be clear so I was very surprised to learn recently that even that had >happened in the past before. > >Maybe all of the testers are more alert than I assume, but unfortunately reality >proves the opposite far too often. Dear testers, please don’t feel insulted now. > >I am thinking what to do in the future. The option to disable the autoplayer in >Shredder doesn’t seem like a perfect solution to me. > >OK, that’s it. If you still believe that I am starting a campaign or something >similar feel free to do so. If you still believe that I am paranoid, ok, but >keep it for yourself and please don’t insult me in a public forum. If you get >the impression that I am hiding because of stronger opponents, I will address >the tournaments I regularly join as often as possible. > >I can’t give you more arguments than that and also am not willing to spent all >of my time writing and reading postings in newsgroups. If you have your own, >different opinion on the whole issue I also will and can live with it. > >I am trying to make a living by writing chess programs. My sales and therefore >my income depends also on the outcome of tournaments and rating lists. What if >there is a random error margin involved in there? If I want random income I >rather go to a casino and play roulette. It is fine with me if one of my >competitors is better than me, also I really wouldn’t like that. I also have to >say that in contrast to what is written and assumed here I have, at least in my >opinion, a good relationship to all of my colleagues. > >Stefan
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.