Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 19:14:18 12/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 1999 at 14:02:57, Roger wrote: >I agree you shouldn't publish the CSTAL games, I just think it's poor judgment >to give Chris Whittington so much control over you if you want to maintain a >reputation as a fair tester. he has no control over me. i am in no way interested in what you call reputation. i do my tournaments no matter if the rest of the world exists. i am doing them for me. >Your decision is political, and that's too bad (you said that your decision was >objective, yet you say the tournament is for yourself...odd). not odd. easy to understand, or ? >Yes, the games are >yours and you can do whatever you want with them, but it seems to me that a >chess tournament ought not be politicalized. life is politics. any person denying this is in my opinion ... ! > Now, you can argue that the history >of chess is thoroughly politicized, and it is...but that doesn't mean you have >follow in its footsteps. as i said: almost anything you do is politics. even if you sit on your toilette. >As a tester, you ought to be above the petty politics of Chris versus CCC. you do not define what "a tester" is or does. who are you ? god ? > The >whole tournament is cheapened because it's Chris versus CCC, via Thorsten. chris and i , and some others, have founded this place. you don't have to follow the tournament. just don't click on my messages. close your eyes and read a good book instead. > And a >lot of the people here are new and don't even know what happened. and ? >You want to let Chris use your tournament to play a game of one-upsmanship that >no one remembers? i am doing what i do. and chris does what he wants to do. >What it looks like to the observer is that Chris and his program can't stand on >their own merits, so instead of just taking his ball (CSTAL) and going home, now >he has to steal everyone's ball (results from all the other programs, too). cstal has won against shredder in the first game. i don't see how you can construct that cstal can't stand on its own merits. shredder is world chess champion and the game was very obvious a nice attack against her new majesty shredder4. if you want to evaluate chris, you should evaluate him for what he has done. you should not try to project things into him that come from your mind. if his program is not able to speak for itself, i don't know. i remember cstal kill genius in a championship-game in paderborn 1995. so - cstal is not the cheap program you want to make it, and chris is not the cheap programmer you want to make him. he has done something nobody else would have thought to realize: a human-touch program playing sacs and doing less NPS than other programs, though killing the best programs. >The whole thing with the licensing agreement...that you can't publish game >sequences from CSTAL...LOOKS LIKE the program can't stand on its own merits, don't try to throw mud on chris and his program, like you do. its good enough to compete with any other program i know. >that its programmer has a large, but extremely thin-skinned, ego that won't >tolerate objective results. show me chess-programmers that have not a large, extremely thin skinned ego. show me a chess programmer who can stand it easily when his program loses. and who likes it when idiots come and attack him or its baby. i know many chess programmers and i know they are (with exceptions) all a little difficult in this field. it seems you don't know them very good. otherwise you would not construct this kind of utopia about a world where chess programmers aren't thin skinned. > But I'll bet Chris would be unlikely to forbid that >games be published if his program could DEFEAT all opposition. you underestimate chris. that is a mistake. >You say that games between Fritz and Junior are boring and advise me to "burn >them." If CSTAL plays more "attractive chess," then why not operationalize >"attractive chess" in a way that allows the programs to be ranked according to >this definition (perhaps making sacs and positional sacrifices). Why be so >sensitive about the program losing to the "bean counters" when that's not it's >purpose? Seems to me that if you are going to run CSTAL in a tournament, then >you have to expect it to lose to the bean counters, because it is trying to play >attractive, exciting chess, which is not always winning chess. > >And there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. But why, then, would Chris be so damn >sensitive about its loses that he would forbid publishing game sequences, and >why in the world would you care what rank the program finishes, when it is >obvious that the most exciting move may not be the best move? > >Seems that you want to have it both ways: You want the most Exciting move to be >the Best move. Rather than grab your ball and go home (forbid publishing game >sequences, allow Chris to censor entire tournaments), you and Chris should have >the self-esteem to be okay with finishing somewhere in the middle of the ranking >of wins and losses. > >And if you're not okay with that, then you ought to operationalize "attractive >chess" sufficiently to allow anyone to follow your methodology and repeat >results that show CSTAL as #1 in attractive chess, as you define it. That would >end the war and do chess a service, because it would give other aspiring >programmers something hard and quantifiable to aim for. > >Unless you and Chris are trying to prove that the move humans think is most >exciting is also Best, a Don Quixote-like crusade, it seems to me that the above >would constructively further your purposes. Bowing to political controversies >and censoring whole tournaments does not. > >Roger > > >On December 18, 1999 at 10:40:46, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On December 18, 1999 at 02:06:20, Roger wrote: >> >>>Your reply is classic Thorsten Czub. :) >> >>of course. i am getting older and older :-)) >> >>>Well, no need to freak out, Thorsten. >> >>:-)) >> >>> What I said was that IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, >>>your decision SUPPORTS what others have ALLEDGED: That you are biased. I did not >>>say that I AGREED with them whether you are biased. I know don't whether you are >>>biased or not, and I don't really care. Everyone has their favorite programs. >>>You have yours. I never claimed that you were biased. I said OTHERS have >>>ALLEDGED that you are biased. >> >>others have not told us if they are maybe biased. >> >>>What is at issue is whether the programmer of a single engine should be able to >>>CENSOR the results of ENTIRE TOURNAMENT from a particular forum. >> >>this has the background in the fact that chris was one of the founders >>too and has been banned here later. >> >>>You say that you will decide whether a particular engine author can censor an >>>entire tournament from an entire forum, "depending on my mind." So then it is >>>not a matter of FACTS which exist independently of your mind and might justify >>>an OBJECTIVE decision...but on something less then? >> >>when i make a decision, depending on my mind :-), >>it is a matter of facts, independently to whatever else happens. and it is >>objective of course. >> >>i have never heard or listened to what other people might say or >>advise. ask other people, they will tell you that i have my own damned >>will and mind. >> >> >>>You mention the license agreement of CSTAL. I didn't know the license agreement >>>was so binding that it allowed Chris to censor entire tournaments. I thought the >>>license agreement applied to games played by CSTAL. Gosh, I will have to reread >>>it. ;) Tell me, do I have to sell or burn the CSTAL program to post games >>>between Fritz and Junior. LOL. >> >>games between fritz and junior are boring. >>you know why. >>burn them. >> >>>My guess is that you could publish the cross-tables here, and games between, >>>say, Fritz and Junior, without violating the CSTAL license agreement. >>maybe. but i will not do so. >>i can publish it in a forum that has not banned chris. >>right? >>if ed would have asked me, or christophe, or mark, or richard. >>i would have done the same. >> >> >>>Publishing >>>the results of CSTAL would violate the license agreement, since you don't have >>>premission, so don't do it. >> >>i have never agreed to cstals licence agreement. >>i have never bought it, so - my agreement is a special on that >>began in those days when i had an atari st and chris had chess player 2150 >>for atari ST. Search depth in those days was 2 , sometimes 3 plies. >> >>:-)) >> >> >>>But what is it that keeps you from publishing games and results between the >>>other engines? >> >>you can ask many questions. and i can not answer many questions. >>and you can comment. the decision has been made. >>sorry, it was not my intention to make long discussions here. i am doing this >>tournament for me. like each year. 2 time a year. one in the summer. >>one tournament in the christmas time. >>One tournament was won by junior. others by hiarcs. >>and if you look many years ago, one tournament was won by Leonardo Maestro >>6 Mhz. this tournament was published in Computerschach and Spiele 1987, >>page 7-13. >>I have played it between 5 dedicated chess computers. each had to play against >>each other 10 games. 100 games. and leonardo maestro won with 22.5 points. >>second was novag forte with 22 pints :-)) >> >>>The following quote from you is particularly distressing: >>>Accusations like the above should not be made lightly. You are, after all, >>>accusing ALL programmers of paying you off. I can't believe this. Such hyperbole >>>only damages your credibility. >> >>:-))) i thought there would be at least one guy not been able to >>recognize a satire and a joke with reality. >> >>in germany we have a law that says: whenever somebody is making a satire >>in television, there must be a blinking ATTENTION: JOKE/SATIRE >>in the left corner of the television screen, so that almost any >>person can identify it :))) it seems the rest of the world needs >>this kind of identifcation too. >> >>>You are also IMPLYING that you are being paid off in this tournament. >> >>:-))) >> >>>I guess I will see it in the end... ;) >> >>>Roger >> >>i am sure you will see as much as you have seen here today :-) >>look forward. SEE.-
This page took 0.01 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.