Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 09:31:05 12/28/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 1997 at 12:10:05, Jeroen Noomen wrote: > >Sorry Chris, this is nonsense. No, its an argued case that you don;t agree with. > >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. Yabba dabba doo :) > >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. Repetition of your case: >4. I also published my view, that computers should stick to normal >theory > > 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 *should*, *normal*, *need weeks*. IMO your argument boils down to: it tkes a *lot of time and effort* fighting off book cracks, so we *should* be *moral* and use a *normal book*. 1. IMO it is impossible to exhort the mass of programmers to this position, therefore one or more will break it (intentionally or otherwise). 2. The 'moralising' is out of place. Since all the opponent program is doing is adding chess knowledge to his program - this cannot poissibly be an immoral act. 3. The definition 'normal book' is another 'morality' exertion. What is normal ? The effect of this entire argument is to attack and humiliate Mchess and supporters - that's actually the imorality. Chris Whittington >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 0.01 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.