Author: blass uri
Date: 05:30:11 09/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 1998 at 08:06:11, Guido Schimmels wrote: > >On September 20, 1998 at 09:53:20, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On September 20, 1998 at 05:10:26, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>>Ed - i do completely subscribe your position. >>>>you try to fight for fair competition. >>>>stand the pressure. >>> >>>Thanks for supporting my view. >>> >>>>don't let the others "convince" you with the means of their feet. >>>>It is important that the ssdf recognize that they cannot do whatever they want, >>>>especially when it comes to "special negotiations" and special conditions with >>>>only ONE participant. >>> >>>I do not think this is the case. I think the SSDF handled in all fairness. They >>>only took a wrong decision not realizing the disadvantages of that decision. >>> >>>>You always argued that there was a common sense, that all programmers >>>>subscribed, to implement the auto232 driver into their programs, to support >>>>this >>>>driver. this common sense of all programmers was impolitely broken by matthias >>>>decision not to support the autoplayer in public. >>> >>>I have read in CSS their motives, I believe them and understand better now. >>>It's indeed not funny if your opening book is shot into pieces. >> >>I am not sure if I understand. >>Do they say that the reason that they did a secret autoplayer is that they were >>afraid of opening preperation in the next ssdf list?. >> >>I know that the powerbook of them is a bad book >>and I think that this is the reason that they did better in the ssdf list when >>they play many games against the same opponent because in this way they can >>learn the good lines of the big book that they use. > >Chessbase say they have never spend precious computing time on outbooking >the opponents and are not going to in the future. I do not think the idea of a good book must be to outbook the opponent It can be to go to positions Fritz understands better. For example if a program has better results in positions when both sides castle in opposite sides it should go for lines when both sides castle in opposite sides. when I say bad book I do not mean to the fact they do not outplay the opponent but to the fact they have bad lines in the book and they lose not because of the engine but becasue of the book. you can see mclane's tournament and understand that it is better if they played without book. > They think this is a complete >waste of time, as it won't make the book any better in reality and therefore it >doesn't add any value for the customers which is their main concern. They >think Fritz has been highly underrated for a long time because the competition >does outbooking excessively and they don't at all. I do not think that books are so important because I found that Junior5 could win fritz5 with 1.f3. I did not finish the game with opposite sides but again white is not losing (both sides evaluate the position after 40 moves as advantage for black when black is Junior but both are wrong because the material advantage of Junior5(16 bit) is not important because fritz5 has knight in the centre and the bishop of Junior5 cannot move). I gave the sides 3 hours per 40 moves. Uri
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.