Author: Don Dailey
Date: 08:19:06 06/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 1998 at 01:12:16, Komputer Korner wrote: >On June 04, 1998 at 21:29:07, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 04, 1998 at 05:12:20, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>>On June 03, 1998 at 19:56:40, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>>Ed Schroder has tried to get a gentleman's agreement to have all the >>>>>programmers provide their program's autoplay driver to the public. The >>>>>idea is that if one program has a secret autoplayer then others won't be >>>>>able to test against it while it will be able to test against theirs. >>>>>This is unfair. He probably won't succeed because having a bunch of >>>>>programmers agree on anything except the alpha beta algorithm is next >>>>>to impossible. >>>>>Komputer Korner >>> >>>>I would agree then that makes it unfair, or dumb for other companys to >>>>make their autoplayer public. If their is no agreement. So this does not >>>>make Fritz 5's rating unfair now? >>> >>>No. There are other reasons. >>> >>Is this a rehash of the old charges, or do you have some proof of some >>kind that is new? >> >> >> >>>>Just the other companys next >>>>generation programs, because they will not be able to autotest against >>>>the current number one program? >>> >>>They will go back and remove the autoplayer as well so that you with the >>>secret autoplayer have no advantage. >> >>This is the point that I have read before that I just don't understand. >>How does Fritz 5 get an advantage now. Are you saying that if Chess base >>would have made the their autoplayer public. Then the rating on ssdf >>would now be ok. When it has be shown by Ed and other that the >>autoplayer was clean. How does the fact that the autoplayer is public or >>not public change the rating of Fritz 5 now? What advantage could Fritz >>5 be getting? >> >> >> >> >>>Of course this is a step back to stone age to play manually. >> >>Is this what all the charges really stem from? That the other companys >>will have to test manually against Fritz 5? If they want to test their >>next programs against the current number one program on the ssdf ratings >>list. >> >>If there is no agreement to make all autoplayers public. How can anyone >>blame chess base, or any other company for wanting to protect their >>programs from unfair booking, and other things that a public autoplayer >>gives. >> >>I just can't help from feeling that if Fritz 5 was not number one on the >>ssdf list. That no one would care if fritz 5 had a public autoplayer or >>not. > >that is a very shortsighted view. in the long run with that attitude >there won't be any automated testing anymore. Without automated testing, >the progress of opening theory and the progress of the top programs >slows down. >-- >Komputer Korner I don't think it's really practical to test manually and also is error prone. But shouldn't we just go ahead and create our own autotester that will work with other programs and settle the issue? If this can be done, we don't rely on support from the program authors. I'm pretty sure it's possible, I've done it myself with Dos programs. Are there any good windows guy's out there? We could get together and write a DOS/Windows/Unix autotester that doesn't need (or use) support from the programmers, and runs on 2 computers. Anyone interested? It should be public domain and be as portable as possible. - Don
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.