Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 11:04:26 04/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2000 at 11:42:12, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>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". :-)
Oh sure, it cannot be, it is impossible, "eppur si muove" ("and yet it moves",
Galileo Galilei). :)
Like Tony, I have played thousands of auto232 games and found very, very few
problems, and even fewer with the Windows version of auto232. In my last
tournament, I had no auto232 problems whatsoever in 420 games. When I compare
this with the enormously time consuming and tedious manual games, which is the
only alternative right now, I consider auto232 "just great". That it could be
better? Being a techno illiterate, I guess so since others say so. But working,
auto232 does work and it has been an invaluable (great) tool. It's all I meant.
Enrique
>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.