Author: Mark Young
Date: 10:08:04 11/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 1998 at 12:41:14, Albert Silver wrote: >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. > >I don't agree. Did Chessbase buy the RAM for SSDF's machines? I don't recall >their announcing maximum memory up to 64 Mb for all programs until AFTER the >whole autoplayer stink blew up. Even if Ed were to furnish special hardware that >particularly favoured his program, would this suddenly be ok? This would be in >the spirit of unbiased objective testing? Mind you, I'm not blaming Chessbase >for this. They can put whatever conditions on the autoplayer they like, but SSDF >was wrong to accomodate them. I agree, this was SSDF choice to make. And agree that chessbase should not be blamed for this or smeared as a company that cheats. They should have just refused to pursue the matter >until Chessbase changed the autoplayer or consulted every programmer whose >program is listed in order to be truly fair. > >> >> 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. >> >>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.