Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:07:10 04/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2000 at 08:54:13, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >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 I have agreed with them for years. :) Bob > > >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.