Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 08:42:12 04/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2000 at 10:11:13, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On April 16, 2000 at 10:05:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 16, 2000 at 04:33:18, Jason Williamson wrote: >> >>>On April 15, 2000 at 23:22:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 15, 2000 at 13:59:26, Tony Hedlund wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 14, 2000 at 12:54:59, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 14, 2000 at 12:46:43, Bertil Eklund wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 14, 2000 at 10:57:27, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes, I have received about 75 games of Shredder but haven't checked them yet. >>>>>>>>Some programs really have improved during the last months so I am busy working >>>>>>>>on Shredder. This is my main target right now, if I have some time left I'll >>>>>>>>check the games but I don't expect any problems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I give you a recent example of some autoplayer problems. This is part of an >>>>>>>>email I wrote today. I didn't want to publish it first but it might help here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"You know about the autoplayer and all of its weaknesses, just this morning I >>>>>>>>had a strange behaviour again. I was playing vs. X when X send the save game >>>>>>>>command to Shredder 3 times in a row. The result was that Shredder saved the >>>>>>>>last game 3 times and adjusted the display of the match result according to >>>>>>>>that. Well, Shredder won, so he got 3 points instead of 1 for the game :-) If >>>>>>>>you don't look very carefully at all the games played with the autoplayer you >>>>>>>>can get all sorts of wrong results." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As I have told you and mr Weiner several times, we partly follows most games and >>>>>>>check the results of every game. In example Tony Hedlund is a very good player >>>>>>>and played in the last Swedish correspondence Championship, Bo Aurell another >>>>>>>tester played in the Swedish Championship in the sixties and I think they can >>>>>>>see if there are any anomalies. I don't know what persons that test your >>>>>>>programs, are they only reporting the scorenumbers? I have now played 122 >>>>>>>tournament games with S4 with only two stops, one game where Hiarcs stopped >>>>>>>within the opening book and one game where S4 played only one move (1.d4) and >>>>>>>saved the game as a win for itself, Nimzo saved it as an unexpected end. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So far I can't see what the problem is. S4 has won against Hiarcs and Nimzo and >>>>>>>looks to crush Tiger (my games). Only one bad loss against F6 a program that >>>>>>>many people believe is the best for the moment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If we had been allowed to test S4 when it was new it had probably been number >>>>>>>one for some time. I believe S4 belongs in the group of Junior6 and Tiger that >>>>>>>fights for the second place. It looks like Fritz6a have made a big step forward >>>>>>>and I believe it is the best program for the moment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I also think that we have been fair against S4 allowing it to use the Turbo-cds, >>>>>>>that seems to be much more efficient than the original Thomson-CDs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Bertil >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>End of quote. >>>>>>>>I have just changed the name of the program involved as I don't want to blame >>>>>>>>anybody. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Stefan >>>>>> >>>>>>I didn't complain that you have treated Shredder unfair and also don't think so. >>>>>>For me there is no problem. Also I didn't say storys like the one above happen >>>>>>at the ssdf. I just wanted to point out that there is so much that can go wrong >>>>>>using the autoplayer. >>>>>> >>>>>>Stefan >>>>> >>>>>I must disagree on this. I've played thousands of games with the autoplayer, and >>>>>I would say that it's very, very little that goes wrong with it. >>>>> >>>>>Tony >>>> >>>> >>>>I disagree with your disagreement. :) >>>> >>>>_Any_ piece of software that is dependent on timing delays and such is a piece >>>>of trash. It turns the interface into a synchronous operation when it should >>>>work asynchronously. trash for an interface. Compare it to the winboard >>>>interface that has _no_ timing issues between an engine and the interface... >>>>No way to lose a message, get multiple copies of the message, etc... >>>> >>>>maybe I insulted the trash of the world, when I think about it. :) >>> >>>hmm one gets the impression that Bob isn't very fond of autoplayer ;))) >> >> >>How would you like a piece of software that requires the following: >> >>(1) a variable delay added so that if you want to move _instantly_ you have >>to delay for some number of milliseconds or auto232 will miss the move and the >>game hangs. >> >>(2) the delay has to change when in endgame databases as the probes cause a >>large number of interrupts that change the timing in ways I never could predict, >>which would again cause the game to hang. >> >>(3) gives the opponent the ability to tell you to 'save game' and such at any >>time the opponent wants, even if it is _your_ move. >> >>(4) requires tampering with the delay when you change to a faster machine. Or >>if you add more tablebases. Or if you remove some. >> >> >>The communication protocol should be totally asynchronous, as in winboard. How >>it was written to have these problems I wouldn't venture a guess... > >A techno-nightmare, or so it seems. > >But, ugly as it may be, it works just great and has been an immensely useful >tool. > >Enrique Reading Bob's message, then yours, I find it hard to believe that it really has worked "just great". :-) It's better than nothing, but there should be better than it. Winboard's protocol also has its share of problems. I think that a replacement protocol for controlling chess engines that ChessBase, Millennium, and independent authors could all use is needed. Dave
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.