Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 15:08:16 06/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2000 at 11:00:45, Albert Silver wrote: >On June 12, 2000 at 23:45:33, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>On June 12, 2000 at 17:33:57, Joachim Denzler wrote: >> >>>> >>>> >>>>This was not the point. Remember that the winning version in 1999 was something >>>>above version 3. So I understand that it is version 4. >>>> >>>>But this is neither the question. the exact number of the version was not the >>>>main point for my question. The main question was why a Champion (of June 1999!) >>>>is sold for 7 US$. >>>> >>>>Then Meyer-Kahlen came and confirmed that it is not closely one of the actual >>>>versions. For me this is a very important statement. Perhaps it was too >>>>difficult to understand. The 7- dollar- program is presented as the Championship >>>>version (!) of the program by S. M.-K.. That is the point. No matter if you >>>>think it's not 3 or M.-K. confirms it is not one of the (good) complete >>>>versions, M.-K. did not play with a slim version of his program to win the >>>>championship. >>> >>>I followed this discussion and was first puzzled by the price of the program, >>>then more puzzled by the answer of Mr. Mayer-Kahlen, and most puzzled >>>by the description of the box that looks pretty much like the box I got as I >>>bought Shredder 4 from ICD. Since I am one of the nox-experts that have been >>>mentioned below it would be very difficult for me to decide whether or not I got >>>the true version 4 of Shredder for the 100$, or something like a Shredder 3.x >>>version (at least I have the endgame CD's, and much more. "This should be enough >>>for 100$. Do you really expect to have also Shredder 4 in it?" - just kidding). >>> >>>If there is really made no clear distinction between the different version of a >>>program this would be one reason not to buy this program any longer. How can I >>>make sure that I do not get an older version that has been on stock for a while? >>> >>>> >>>>The superficiality of such discussions is telling. My last debate was about the >>>>Deep Blue match and who was to blame for the bad climate between the two >>>>parties. If you isolate parts of a question you might succeed in finding quick >>>>answers but you can not find the truth. In a way the impossibility to find the >>>>truth allows a strong verdict against a certain party. If you are familiar with >>>>science and its reasoning this is all but totally new information. >>>> >>>>In our actual debate the point is that Stefan Meyer-Kahlen is responsible (since >>>>his name is figuring on the box and CD with the name of hcc) for a situation >>>>where his "championship (!) version" is sold for 7 dollars and he confirms >>>>without hesitation that the program is (of course) _not_ one of the complete >>>>good versions... In science we call it a contradiction. In science you can not >>>>simply produce contradictions without hurting your good name. Now the selling of >>> >>>This is exactly the problem that I also have right now! Perhaps the next step >>>would be that we read here: "You have to buy Shredder directly from Millenium >>>2000 - do you really expect to get the latest version from ICD". Again, this is >>>of course overdrawn ;-) >>> >>>>a product is not science at all, but it still throws a bad light on you if you >>>>try to hide your responsibility for a market strategy (to omit to qualify the >>>>technique with the justified verdict) and run away with the money. >>>> >>>>Must I repeat that it is written on the box that this is the championship >>>>version that was playing on a "normal" PC? >>>> >>>>Of course the expert knows that this can not be true because all the endgame CDs >>>>are not in the box. Of course this, of course that. >>>> >>>> >>>>Hans Gerber >>>> >>>> >>> >>>In this sense I fully agree with Hans Gerber and would like to see a more honest >>>marketing strategy of Millenium (perhaps I live outside reality?!) >>> >>>Joachim Denzler >> >> >>Outside the marketing reality perhaps. >> >>In the meantime I did install the program. >> >>First observations. >> >>1. The display looks very inviting. Similarities with the WIN version of GENIUS >>are obvious. >> >>2. I could not find a cconcrete description of the engine. >> >>3. The help file with F1 is opening as a HTML. >> >>4. What a surprise! Right on the first page you can see a photo of Stefan >>Meyer-Kahlen with his wife Anna, both holding a trophy in their hands. >> >>5. The text is not exactly telling that you have SHREDDER on your PC. This >>"missing link" is mentioned but not openly outspoken. >> >>6. Let me describe the tricky method. Above of the page you read "World >>Champion". Then the photo. Then the text. Again Stefan Meyer-Kahlen is mentioned >>who has won the championship in June 1999 with his computerprogram SHREDDER. >>There you have it. So, if you have here the 'World Champion', it is clear that >>you "have" SHREDDER, since SHREDDER became World Champion in 1999. >> >>In reality you do not have SHREDDER, the one of Paderborn, because e.g. the >>endgame CDs are not included. Still you can read that you hold in your hands the >>winning program that ran on a "normal" PIII with 550 MHz. The method is the same >>as above. If you are the owner of such a PC and you did install SHREDDER, excuse >>me, the WORLD CHAMPION of course, then you play with the winning program of the >>last championship. >> >>In reality you do not play with that program because of the missing endgames. >> >> >>Conclusion >> >>The more the version of the here presented program differs from the "version" >>(must be version 4) at Paderborn 1999, the more the text (on the box, on the CD >>and in the files of the program) does not tell you the truth about itself. > >As I recall, Shredder 4 is not what won Paderborn in 1999, but a version >somewhere in between Shredder 3 and Shredder 4. The fact that Shredder CAN make >use of the endgame CDs does not mean that the CDs are a part of the >engine/program IMO. Yes, they come with the more expensive Shredder 4 package, >but I consider that as a bonus, and not an inherent part of Shredder itself. My >curiousity is to how far or close the engine is to Shredder 4, and how much it >differs by. At the end of your message below you write that there is "no false advertising" involved. Now please take a look at the following arguments. It is common knowledge that a chess program can play better games if it has endgame tables included. For that reason alone the advertising (that you 'have' the Paderborn version of SHREDDER/ WORLD CHAMPION) is false advertisement. Because in Paderborn the winning SHREDDER had the endgames included. So would you agree with me that we have a clear case of false advertisement? As to the engine. The same. Stefan M.-K. has already confirmed that the WORLD CHAMPION is _not_ the strongest SHREDDER version. The text on the box and in the program does clearly state that it _is_ the version of Paderborn. > As I said earlier, though I have never seen anyone mention it here >or in RGCC back when, I have seen an official boxed version of Genius 3.5 making >claims to being an improved version of the engine that took down Kasparov in >London. Bastard versions aren't unheard of, and if the engine is indeed the same >as the one that won Paderborn (which is why I suggested testing it alongside >Shredder 3 and 4 in order to compare), you got a heck of a deal for $7. This >does bring back your other question as to whether it was normal to see a program >that was World Champion only a year ago for such a paltry sum, but I wouldn't >consider there to be any false advertising involved. > > Albert Silver > >P.S. I remember the Deep Blue discussion quite well, and I don't remember you as >being the one to keep to the big picture whereas others remained glued to >details. There was a long series of posts in which your only concern was whether >Kasparov had indeed made his accusations right after the second game or after. I >dropped the thread because I couldn't see what difference it made as it was >already clear he had made his statements by the third game. In any case, it was >clear that Kasparov was the one who had started the mud-slinging. As to the Kasparov and Deep Blue topic we can agree to disagree. For you it is clear that Kasparov was the one who had started. For you this _clear_. Now the whole debate between R. Hyatt and me was about whether Kasparov began or IBM (and the DB team). My theory still is that Kasparov asked them in private for the prints. Then they went into the public by launching a New York Times article (where Weber interviewed Campbell). Then they refused (in private) to give the files to Kasparov. Only then Kasparov went into the public himself after game three. IF that theory is true then you could not blame Kasparov. If you agree that the DB team should have paid Kasparov some respect (since he was their wanted candidate as the best human player), then it is even clearer that Kasparov did not break any rules of good behavior. Because they should not have treated him like someone who asked for the 'impossible'. Now back to R. Hyatt. He is a scientist. I take his arguments for serious. If R. Hyatt pretended that Kasparov had thrown with mud (your expression) directly after game two on "that press conference" - and I can prove that there was not even a press conference with Kasparov after game two - then this seemingly so unimportant detail becomes important. Not because a scientist could not make a mistake but because a scientist should not quarrel for a whole week proposing that I should examin certain data records here and there... Not enough. Such a scientist should neither spread all sort of insults against another member of this club if he, the scientist, is unable to find proofs for his claim. I am sorry that this takes so long but perhaps you might now understand that the question is difficult to answer whether Kasparov is guilty of what you have said. Because if the DB team and IBM started the public campaign against him they are guilty in my opinion. Therefore the detail (when exactly Kasparov went into the public) is important. Now look at the press conference after game three. The questions of the masters (who also worked on the stage during the games) show that they are not surprised by Kasparov's declaration. GM Seirawans memo of that event (now on the IBM webpages) shows that he must have thought about that topic before. But he was like the other masters working for IBM! Please make your own conclusions. Of course nobody can prove who started where and when. But please think about the following arguments. If you read the text from that press conference now in 2000 you must think different about it. Today we know (thanks to R. Hyatt's explanation) that "cheating" would have been no problem at all! Even if they had given Kasparov his wanted prints the files could already had been prepared and Kasparov could never have discovered something strange. It was even argued that Kasparov and his allies (Friedel!) would not have understood anything detailed of the logfiles... Now please make your own conclusions. Is it so difficult to understand why I (therefore) talked about a psycho war of IBM vs. Kasparov? Since, if the files would not have meant much to the chess of that match, why they denied to give them to their guest? In my opinion for a single reason. They knew that they would insult the pride of the human player. If you go back into 1997 and examin the discussion of that time you can find R. Hyatt strongly object the giving of the files to Kasparov because this would have been a big advantage for him in the match. Is it not interesting? The complete debate in 1997 and afterwards missed the main point. _IF_ the DB team would have felt normal after game two and after Kasparov's plea they would have told him something like this: "Garry, we understand that you are irritated by the moves in that game. But look, if we give you the prints you won't understand much better what you are searching for. Look, if we wanted to cheat we could do it and nobody could prove it. Neither Ken Thompson nor nobody. We invite you tonight to come with us and make some experiments with the machine. You may try some variations. Sure, you might profit a little bit for the next games, but we, Hsu and all the scientist, we do not want to win a match by tricks, if we win we want to be sure that it's only because the machine could play better chess than you! Maybe we don't win this year. Ok, for the best of it. Then we have many re-matches in future. But the day will come when our machine will be better than you. Are you interested in that sort of thing?" As we all now they didn't do this. The DB team thought that by psyching out Kasparov they could demonstrate that the machine already was better than Kasparov. The bad side of all that is well known. The whole world of experts knows that DB was _not_ better than Kasparov but that Kasparov played way beyond his normal chess. And Kasparov himself? The computer experts around Hsu did insult his pride so deeply that he is lost for that chain of rematches. If you have followed the comic tries of Hsu at the end of 99 to come into contact with Kasparov you know who's the real loser of the whole event. You might say that all this is old news. But then look at FRITZ in Holland and the whole mix-up of protests and denials to play the machine. The DB team has destroyed much more than the pride of Kasparov. They have shown to the human players that the computer people have no respect for the human genius. And that they want to triumph over the human players although they do not understand the game of chess at all. Sure you will always find some humans or organizations who will invite computers to participate but mainly it's a question of money either by sponsorships or by higher numbers of spectators. The mutual respect for each other however has been destroyed by the behavior of the DB team in 1997. By now the human players do know how far the computer people are ready to go for a win... Hans Gerber > > >> >>Question again, who is to believe? The Stefan Meyer-Kahlen of CCC or the Stefan >>Meyer-Kahlen as one of the notified responsibles for the mentioned product? >> >>Important note. The whole theme does not go about really big money. The point is >>the importance of a certain style, a hopefully scientific attitude as a >>programmer and the moral of people in the chess business. >> >> >> >>Hans Gerber
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.