Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 19:51:24 08/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 14, 1998 at 21:30:26, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>maybe this has something to do with the fact that fritz and ferret are somehow >>similar, but fritz searches deeper. > >Then Ferret should be blown out by CST, too, and this didn't happen when Chris >showed up with it on ICC. ?!? Sense ? When fritz kills ferret because programs are similar but fritz searches deeper, why should cst kill ferret, when ferret is different and searches deeper ?! I see no sense in your statement. If i would have had ferret, i would put it on the same speed machine that cstal uses, and than i would do enough games to know. Since this is not possible. Also - why are you so much focussed on cst. Has cst to proof that fritz plays weak ? No. I play with many programs against fritz. and they should lose, but they don't. Others have these *not so good* results too. Isn't it normal that I wonder about how this fits together ?! >But in any case, I don't think Ferret is similar to Fritz. My understanding of >Fritz is that it is a root-evaluator using null-move and possibly some other >aggressive pruning. Maybe Fritz 5 is different, I do not know. I don't know about ferret. But i am sure it is also a very fast program. Fritz is fast too. >Ferret uses null move, sure, and a little razoring, but no rocket-science >pruning. It evaluates at the tips, and it does a lot of stuff that you probably >don't think Fritz does. ok. i have no idea about ferret, bruce. how could i. You don't even wanted to play against cstal when we would have had the chance to do so in den haag. >This can describe any number of programs that you wouldn't regard as being >similar to Fritz, I think. Do you think that Crafty is similar to Fritz? >Ferret is pretty similar to Crafty, because Bob and I talk a lot. nimzo is similar to fritz. tiger is similar to fritz. nimzo has problems against fritz. old tiger had problems against fritz. if you have mchess, and a similar program e.g. hiarcs, you can estimate that mchess and hiarcs will fight very complicate because BOTH programs evaluate very speculative. >>>I don't understand why you think that CST would score so well against Fritz, >but >> >>I play fritz against all kind of programs. >>Tiger, Diep, Eugen, Zarkov, Rebel, etc. >> >>I cannot reproduce the good results. > >I see it killing things on the net. could be. I don't play on the net. >I think that part of the problem here is that you say things, then apparently >forget that you say them. ?!?! >Start of quote (16486.txt), from 0498.zip: >Subject: Re: only a nice game of c.-chess... >From: Thorsten Czub >E-mail: mclane@prima.ruhr.de >Message Number: 16486 >Date: April 04, 1998 at 08:01:38 > >[snip, also you were quoting Moritz but the header seems to be gone] > >>4. No independent tester with a Fritz autoplayer (e.g. Enrique, myself, >>several SSDF guys) has produced bad results for Fritz. So are they all >>cheating? > >Right. The autoplayer cheats. The people involved have nothing to do >with the cheating. They are only OWNERS of machines. THEY do not produce >the data, they are only OWNERS of machines. >You try to suggest that I call Enrique or you cheaters. >In fact I do call ChessBase and their autoplayer the main problem. >If you want to show something use the Chrilly Donninger auto232-device. >In the moment you use the ChessBase autoplayer you cheat. >Do you get this right ?! > >----------------------------------------------------------- But in the quote you have given above, I say that enrique is ok. I call the autoplayer as a problem. Where is my insult then ?! I don't understand your logic. Matthias said: the autoplayer of fritz shall never fall in enemy hand. So : moritz and enrique do not seem to be enemies, or ?! this is all we can guess. I have said that i don't think enrique cheats. The same stands for moritz and dirk. >End of quote. You also made some more ambiguous references to the autoplayer >cheating in 16403.txt and 16454.txt (In this one you said either the autoplayer >was cheating or Moritz was cheating, but that you weren't going to sort it out). could be. I have my reasons to have said this. I don't want to discuss this here. In a similar beta testing, moritz had strange results that i never understood. This made me suspicious. because i did not understand his 10-0 results. > This was all in March and April. I didn't look past 16486 because that post >seemed to be pretty clear. right. >In any case, I don't particularly care, other than that you made me doubt my own >memory. My statement was that *I* don't think that the autoplayer cheats. >bruce
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.