Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: SSDF and the programmers, I resign.......................

Author: Ed Schröder

Date: 00:41:15 03/19/98

Go up one level in this thread


>Posted by Detlef Pordzik on March 18, 1998 at 19:44:04:

>In Reply to: Re: SSDF and the programmers............ posted by Ed Schröder
>on March 18, 1998 at 04:38:38:

>On March 18, 1998 at 04:38:38, Ed Schröder wrote:

>>I fully agree with you. If things get honest again (engine versus
>>engine)
>>I will be happy to join the SSDF again. But let's face it, first we had
>>to deal with book cooks, then the learners came and now we have to deal
>>with an unknown autoplayer from a competitor?

>Yes - this is right, let me say - the majority of it.....
>you know it, I know it - and all of them people of the elder times :
>what we now call book - cooking was named outbooking in them old times -
>but, it
>was more durable ( :-) ) - because of burnt EPROM's.
>This has allways been there.....
>because of lack of knowledge, how the learner actually works, I cannot
>comment this - you must know better, if there are more possibilitiers
>than just avoiding a loosing line, as a simple man'd suggest it to work.

>>This for me is just the limit. Till now everybody has made his
>>autoplayer public. Now we have a new fashion, a secret autoplayer.
>>Who is next? Why should I join this new fashion?

>Don't you do so, Ed !

You have my word.


>For my opinion neather you, nor Marty, Richard, Johann, Mark, Stefan and
>Robert
>would need to join such a " new " - but leading into nowhere - " fashion
>".
>( Jesus - hopefully didn't forget one of them big names....)
>This road'd be a dead end street - the basical quality of the progs is
>far too

>high + in the end you all'd ruin the effort of many years.

You are so right.

We are now in a state that "improving learning" overrules the
importance of "improving the chess engine". All fine with me in
HUMAN-COMP games but not for COMP-COMP games on SSDF and (miss)
using AUTO232 for that purpose.

If I take the 100% Rebel9 chess engine (so no improvements at all!)
add the "learner" improvements as I have described in a previous
posting, and release this as Rebel_SSDF then Rebel_SSDF will end up
30-40 elo points higher on SSDF than Rebel9.

Then I start "yelling" on the Rebel Home Page, "Rebel_SSDF is much
stronger than Rebel9!!".

That would be a cheat to the public IMO.

In fact the only thing I would have done (please read my previous
posting) is that I have taken advantage of the fact that I know NOW
*HOW* SSDF testers do their testing.

I don't want to be a part of such a development but this kind of
things is happening right before our eyes since a few years.


>Because then there would be no more research on increase of the quality
>of gameplay - but only the gasp for new horizons of tricks.....
>I fairly doubt - as I know some of you, that the people themselves would
>do it, after all. It would just be the upcoming end - correct ??

For me this is a correct conclusion.

Others disagree. Others say see it as an innovation. Or as a
development you can't stop. Or as making a chess program as a
complete chess player. Or in a match everything is allowed.

I say yes to all of this as long this is related to HUMAN-COMP but
not for COMP-COMP games on SSDF and (miss) using AUTO232 for that
purpose.

I noticed that besides you and a few others most people do not
share my views I have tried to share. I guess I will lose this
discussion. So I like to be out. I hereby resign.

- Ed -


>Dull ELVIS could offer a solution on short range, where the " loosing
>part " -
>in this case, SSDF, would have a minimum of problems - comparing to the
>state of art :
>just start a new testing seria with F5 - book on HD - why not....leave
>the brute
>searcher it's 44 MB - why not....R9 + M7 can grab 60 MEGS without
>problems - but
>in difference to F5 they don't NEED such big tablebases on 40/120......
>repeat all this on commercial available autoplayer - and then replace
>the old result.
>IF F5 is still on top, then, it's allright - if not - I don't
>know...:-))
>This would even leave CB the chance of not loosing their face ( totally
>).
>Not to forget Frans Morsch - who is really kicked by all this !
>On longer range :
>ONLY commercial available progs with the original engine.
>Skip doubles.
>Standard autoplayer.

>Maybe I'm a dreamer.....but I see nothin' better ;
>for the SSDF
>for buisness
>for the customer

>>I do not share Ossie Weiner's opinions in the way he has expressed
>>himself. I have no single evidence the chessbase autoplayer cheats.
>>Neither do I expect that from a respected company. But I should have
>>the chance to check that myself. It's called fair competition.

>As I've posted before -
>Ossi does his job - I think, you're one of the VERY last - not to know
>this,   eh ?
>What does KK allways post standardly ?
>"....should be taken with a grain of salt...."
>- make the load a little bigger - then you can swallow this, too :-))

>>Sofar I noticed:

>>#1. The chessbase autoplayer doesn't save the opponents game. Maybe
>>opponents in that stage update their learner? Logical place no? And
>>now maybe this learner update is bypassed? For Rebel8/9 this could
>>be so true. I can't check. How can I judge?

>>#2. The chessbase autoplayer changes colors. white-black-white and
>>so on. This is not COMMON auto232. Looking at my source code this
>>doesn't seem to influence the learner of Rebel. But how can I know
>>for sure? And what about other chess programs? Did the Swedish ask
>>the programmers if this white-black-white behavior influence their
>>learners? One thing for sure, they didn't ask me. And from a
>>programmers view of point this white-black-white behavior can easily
>>disturb their learner.

>>Quite a mess...

>ELVIS ain't no programmer - I think, Robert wrote something interesting
>about this.
>Anyway - right in here ( without any elitary attitude ) - there are so
>many
>educated guys......names - older, newer - alot of them known for long
>time in this buisness -
>one should think about constructing an open letter ( why only Ossi....),
>maybe
>signed by 30 or 40 respectable people - so there'd be no chance to spot
>it as a single sided commercial sight -
>and then send it to Sweden......only a suggestion.

>ELVIS




This page took 0.01 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.