Author: Jeroen Noomen
Date: 09:10:05 12/28/97
Go up one level in this thread
Sorry Chris, this is nonsense. 37 moves of 'theory' and leaving the book with +4 has nothing to do with auto-learnt. It has also nothing to do with holes in an opening book. If you want to defend this: fine. This says a lot more about you than about me. Furthermore I once more give a brief overview about what happened: 1. Thorsten Czub finds out that in a game MCP-Hiarcs the former one plays 37 moves out of book ending with u huge score in favour of White. 2. Thorsten states that he doesn't like this kind of stuff. 3. I confirm his findings, stating that I have seen this all before. 4. I also published my view, that computers should stick to normal theory and battle it out THEMSELVES. Instead there seems to be a development that the battle between programs is fought in the rooms of openingbook makers. And THAT is a development I don't like. Whatever you think, you will not change my opinion on that. Maybe the Nunn-method - a preselected set of opening positions - is a good solution for this. If you'll find out one day that the CSTAL book is attacked by other programs by using a lot of nonsense lines that have nothing to do with opening theory and you'll need weeks to 'repair' this, maybe than you'll understand me. And I am sure that at that moment you will have the same opinion about it like me. Regards, Jeroen >Only they are not cooked, they are auto-learnt. The difference is in the >intention. > >Further, why is it that the Rebel team are always so busy assaulting >Mchess ? First it was Ed several months ago with a major anti-Mchess >campaign; now you seem to be acting as proxy and doing the same thing. > >So he leaves the book with a plus score. So what. CSTal leaves book with >major plus scores, major minus scores, it happens; and I've never cooked >a book in my life. > >Plug the holes in your book. And thank Mchess for pointing them out to >you. > >Chris Whittington > > > > >> >>Regards, Jeroen >> >>> >>>I want to defend Mchess. >>> >>>Because, in these arguments over the past few days, I'm reminded of >>>Stalin's dictum from the 1930's. He said that *intentions* were >>>irrelevent. If the *result* of your actions were counter-revolutionary, >>>then you were a counter-revolutionary - and should therefore be shot. No >>>matter that you were trying to fulfill the plan if you made a mistake >>>and failed - you were to be shot. >>> >>>Now Mchess has a learning feature - it tries an opening; if it comes out >>>of the line with a minus, it remembers and tries another move later. if >>>it comes out plus, it remembers and extends the book. This way it builds >>>a book where 'bad' theory gets rejected; and a new Mchess idea gets >>>tried. If the 'new' idea works, it becomes part of the book, Hence the >>>later computer games of mchess where it plays as per some Gm or Im game >>>up to move 38, amd then there's another move, never seen before, or >>>other move series never seen before. So Mchess extends chess knowledge >>>via autoplayer games. They then release with the new book; and the ng's >>>start to skweak. >>> >>>The *effect* is counter-revolutionary, while the *intent* was greater >>>knowledge. >>> >>>You guys argue to shoot Sandro Nechi. Instead you should be applauding >>>him. >>> >>>Chris Whittington
This page took 0.02 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.