Author: Paulo Soares
Date: 13:07:31 04/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2000 at 13:30:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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". :-) >> >>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 > > >We talked about this once before, but no one other than 'freeware' guys were >interested. It really is time to sit down and define a workable standard. >Precise commands with non-ambiguous meanings, covering all the bases we want >to cover, from different types of time control, to end-of-game messages, to >how a game will be resumed after interruption, to you-name-it. > >I'm willing if anyone really wants to talk seriously (we could do it in a long >thread here). But it would be nice to get commercial interest/input so that >_everybody_ commits to supporting it... then it would work, just like PGN has >worked. I am an admirer and a consumer of chess programs. Certainly that "fight" with relationship at the auto232 leaves me insecure, because same the ones that defend the auto232 admit that problems exist with the program. What leaves me more concerned it's that, with relationship to those problems, nobody knows exactly when they will happen, it's causes, and the importance of those problems in the result of the game. Tony and Enrique affirm that played hundreds of games and few problems happened. These words of Tony and Enrique could leave me calmer, but unhappily I feel more insecure, because I don't believe that they have time for to verify if all these thousands of moves are ok. Summarizing, I agree with the one that you wrote, only a serious work, with the programmers' cooperation, and the companies that market the programs, can solve this problem, that certainly will leave the consumers and admirers of chess programs more satisfied. Paulo Soares, from Brazil
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.