Author: blass uri
Date: 05:42:21 11/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 1998 at 08:11:45, Mark Young wrote: >On November 17, 1998 at 07:07:55, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On November 17, 1998 at 05:05:05, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On November 16, 1998 at 22:02:29, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On November 16, 1998 at 20:22:03, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 16, 1998 at 18:32:16, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 16, 1998 at 17:46:32, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>> >>>>(snip) >>>>>> >>>>>>Thorsten did not say Junior (Amir) is cheating. >>>>> >>>>>You need to go back and read what Thorsten wrote, because it is clear to me that >>>>>what he is saying. >>>> >>>> >>>>Here is what Thorsten has said. BTW this was a reply to one of your post, so you >>>>should already know: >>>> >>>>-----------(Begining of Thorsten Czub quote) >>>> >>>>amir is not doing the GUI. don't you get this ? >>>>amir has only send his engine to chessBase. he does not know what they do with >>>>it. >>>>where am i saying amir cheats ? >>>>it is the engine X in the user-interface. if the user-interface is buggy, ANY >>>>engine would make problems. >>>> >>>>how do you want to construct now that i call amir a cheater ? >>>>imo you only want to make trouble here. you mix things. you claim things >>>>i have never said and would never say, because i don't think it is amir who has >>>>done that. >>>>this was all done long before amir. >>>> >>>>-----------(end of quote) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>And because Junior 5's autoplayer has >>>>>>>a bug this proves that Fritz 5 is doing the something and proves that Fritz 5 >>>>>>>also cheated. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>F5 autoplayer has been reported to have the same kind of bug several months ago. >>>>> >>>>>Really, and now we know the that report was wrong, Ed checked it out and found >>>>>no problems with it. >>>> >>>> >>>>To my knowledge, Ed did not test the autoplayer, because he never had it. >>>> >>>>Ed has been told that Rebel has sometimes been prevented from saving its games. >>>> >>>>He tried to figure out if this could have hurt Rebel's learning feature. >>>> >>>>He thinks that it has not hurt Rebel's learning algorithm. >>>> >>>>That's all. I hope Ed can confirm this. If I am wrong, I have to be corrected. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>That is: somebody has found that sometimes F5 opponent was unable to save its >>>>>>game. This "somebody" was not Thorsten. >>>>> >>>>>I can only go by what Ed reported. He is the only expert I know that has seen >>>>>it. >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't think he has seen the bug himself. Once again I hope he will confirm. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>Known facts >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1. Junior 5 has a bug in the autoplayer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>2. Fritz 5 and Junior 5 have different autoplayers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>3. SSDF is not having this problem with the Junior 5 autoplayer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>4. Ed said that the Fritz 5 autoplayer was "clean" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I guess you are going to have a message from Ed for this, because he did not say >>>>>>that. >>>>> >>>>>I think that what I read. And I read it was "clean" But if I am wrong Ed can >>>>>correct me. I want the facts to be correct. >>>> >>>> >>>>Once again I hope Ed replies to this. >>>> >>>>In between, may I quote one of Amir's post: >>>> >>>> >>>>-------------(Begining of quote) >>>> >>>>It's not yet clear what this J5 autoplayer problem is, and whether we are >>>>dealing with a single problem or several unrelated ones, but I don't understand >>>>what this has with saving the opponent's game. In the past, ChessBase >>>>acknowledged a problem in the F5 autoplayer's saving of opponent's game, but at >>>>least apparently this is working ok in the J5 autoplayer. >>>> >>>>-------------(End of quote) >>>> >>>> >>>>I know Amir is not talking for ChessBase, but he is in close relation with them. >>>>So we have at least another confirmation that there has been "a problem in the >>>>F5 autoplayer's saving of opponent's game" (Amir's words). >>>> >>>>Of course, ChessBase people are free to correct this if they want. If they don't >>>>know CCC, maybe somebody can tell them we are talking about them here... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>(snip) >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>2. How can anyone draw the conclusion that since Junior 5's autoplayer has >>>>>>>somekind of problem on some computers, this shows that Fritz 5's autoplayer was >>>>>>>doing the same thing? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Nobody needs to make this conclusion. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The problem with Fritz5 was reported several months ago by somebody else that >>>>>>has tested the Fritz5 autoplayer. >>>>>> >>>>>>But by reading your sentence suddenly I realize that both autoplayers come from >>>>>>the same company. Thanks for the idea. :) >>>>> >>>>>I can see you are as loose with the facts as Thorsten, >>>> >>>> >>>>Did I say anything that is wrong ? >>>> >>>>Maybe you didn't know that F5 autoplayer had a problem ? >>>> >>>>Maybe you don't know both autoplayers come from the same company ? >>>> >>>>Where am I loose with the facts ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>What a reckless statement >>>>>to make. By reading your sentence I suddenly realize that fair play and a honest >>>>>discussion about other programs means nothing to you. I guess for some it is >>>>>worth being dishonest, if they think it can give their arguement more sting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>3. How does anyone draw the conclusion that because a piece of software has a >>>>>>>bug, this proves intent that it was no mistake, just because a bug exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>In the case of Junior, Amir's behaviour shows clearly that there is no >>>>>>intention. >>>>> >>>>>Correct I agree. >>>>>> >>>>>>But there is a question because a previous secret autoplayer from the same >>>>>>company had a related strange behaviour. >>>>> >>>>>How do you know it has the same strange behaviour, when it is secret. You can >>>>>not base this conclusion on any kind of facts. >>>> >>>> >>>>Once again, Amir said: >>>> >>>>-------------(Begining of quote) >>>> >>>>It's not yet clear what this J5 autoplayer problem is, and whether we are >>>>dealing with a single problem or several unrelated ones, but I don't understand >>>>what this has with saving the opponent's game. In the past, ChessBase >>>>acknowledged a problem in the F5 autoplayer's saving of opponent's game, but at >>>>least apparently this is working ok in the J5 autoplayer. >>>> >>>>-------------(End of quote) >>>> >>>>you are right, these are not facts. >>>> >>>>This is just what somebody (Amir in this case) says. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>When you don't want people to suspect you of doing something nasty, you just >>>>>>release a public autoplayer. >>>>> >>>>>And if you don't release a public autoplayer it gives people like Thorsten and I >>>>>guess you the right to make up anything you want about the company and the >>>>>autoplay. Because you did not like the fact that it was not public. >>>> >>>> >>>>For months I did not say anything about this secret autoplayer. >>>> >>>>I thought: these guys out there are making too much noise against ChessBase >>>>without giving evidence. >>>> >>>>So I can understand your point of view. >>>> >>>>I did not know that F5 had a problem with saving opponent's game. >>>> >>>>Now we know and we have a confirmation from at least 2 people (the guy that >>>>originally reported the F5 problem and Amir). >>>> >>>>Thorsten has experienced the problem when playing Tiger against Junior, and >>>>reported to me. Maybe it is not the same autoplayer, but this made me realize >>>>that it was possible. >>>> >>>>I did not know, or did not believe, that the opponent could change the >>>>autoplayer behaviour to the point that you could not even save your game! >>>> >>>>I am using the standard "NONAME" autoplayer. That means that on the computer >>>>running Tiger there is a small piece of software, written several years ago by >>>>C. Donninger, that takes care of communications with the opponent and sending >>>>keystrokes to Tiger. >>>> >>>>I thought that saving the game was done automatically by this piece of software >>>>when the game ends. The game ends with a timeout (no more move are played for a >>>>given amount of time), so the opponent has no control to avoid this. >>>> >>>>What I did not know is that the opponent sends the command to save the game to >>>>my own program. And that a bug in the opponent could prevent my own program to >>>>save the game, and to learn if my learning algorithm is done when I save the >>>>game! >>>> >>>>So an autoplayer is really a critical piece of software, and not releasing it >>>>publicly is a problem to me. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I'm sorry I have I problem with those kind of ethics. >>>> >>>> >>>>I have an even bigger problem with the fact that the autoplayer is secret and >>>>that the SSDF trusted it enough to establish results on the strength of the >>>>chess programs. >>>> >>>>I have been a little bit late to come to this conclusion, but now I think it >>>>would be fair that previous results of Fritz5 are removed from the list, and >>>>that Fritz5 is rated with the new public autoplayer. >>>> >>>>I know it would require a lot of additional work from the SSDF guys, and I am >>>>sorry for them, but it would definitely clean them from all suspicion. >>>> >>>>Do you think it would be unfair ? >>> >>>Yes this is unfair, I have seen no proof that there is anything wrong with the >>>autoplayer. Just smear, because you guys did not like the fact that the >>>autoplayer was not public. No, this kind of tactic can not stand. If SSDF falls >>>to this kind of tactic, then SSDF is no longer independent. >> >>I don't know about that. I think they lost their independance the minute they >>allowed someone's program to dictate special conditions. > >For this statement to be correct, then SSDF was forced to test Fritz 5 by >Chessbase. I don't think the "special conditions" were out of bonds. > > It's true, that >>increasing the RAM was then passed on to all other programs, but what of it. >>Suppose Ed put in a command that only allowed his program to be tested on an AMD > >Well if Ed buys them all AMD machines I'm sure they would be glad to test it >that way. But can Ed force SSDF to test this way, no. That is SSDF's call, and >no one elses > > > >>processor, a processor that Rebel is known to favour? Sure, you could then say >>that all programs will be allowed to run on AMD processors to equalize the >>score, but I think fairness went out the window in this story a long time ago. > >I would not mind if SSDF would test on AMD machines, because many programs other >then Rebel like AMD machines better, MHZ for MHZ. > >I would mind if Chessbase started to smear Rebel because the programs are on AMD >Machines, and they use this as an excuse for their poor showing. > >You have to understand the conditions of the testing, example we do not know if >Fritz 5 is best on P II 400 computes vs all the other programs. We do not know even if Fritz5 is best on pentium200MMX vs all the other programs. I found that Rebel9(p90) lost the same game some times against Fritz5 in the ssdf games. Rebel9 is a program that can learn so the only reason that I can find for it is that the learner of Rebel9 was disabled by a bug in the fritz5 Autoplayer(Ed can correct me if there can be another reason). I found also that in the ssdf games Fritz5 won the same game 5 times against Rebel8. If fritz5 played less games against programs without learning feature the results could be different I do not think that repeating winning lines is productive against humans in a match because the human can predict the opponent of fritz5 and prepare against it. It is better(against humans) to learn by avoiding losing lines and not repeating winning lines. Uri > >I'm finding Junior 5 better then Fritz 5 on faster computers, but I know the >results could be different on slower computers. So I am not upset that Junior 5 >is not #1 on the SSDF list. > >P.S. I think Junior 5 will be #1 on the SSDF list in its next posting but it may >not be. > > >> >>Another thing, which has nothing to do with the above: did SSDF have any >>problems with saved games with F5? If they had none (they might have had some >>but assumed it was a glitch and not reported it), fine, but if they did then it >>should be further investigated for Amir said that when he was able to spot a bug >>it only happened when his program was lost. Not pointing fingers here as I don't >>think cheating was involved, but this would affect the results. >> >>> >>>And again you can not link the Fritz 5 autoplay and the Junior 5 autoplayer, We >>>only know about the Junior 5 autoplayer. And SSDF is having no problems with it. >>> >>>Even under you own logic that they are linked with the same bug, SSDF is not >>>have problems with the Junior 5 autoplayer, so under you logic SSDF should not >>>have had a problem with the Fritz 5 autoplayer. >>> >>>So get over it. The new programs are comming that will be better then fritz 5, >>>and they have public autoplayers. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>(snip) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe
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.