Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: M-Chess Pro7 : strength ??

Author: Chris Whittington

Date: 07:52:17 12/30/97

Go up one level in this thread



On December 30, 1997 at 08:59:44, Ed Schröder wrote:

>>Posted by Chris Whittington on December 30, 1997 at 06:54:48:
>
>>In Reply to: Re: M-Chess Pro7 : strength ?? posted by Ed Schröder on
>>December 29, 1997 at 19:24:11:
>
>>On December 29, 1997 at 19:24:11, Ed Schröder wrote:
>
>>>>I mean, you appear to be taking the moral high grouind, but are your
>>>>motives pure ?
>
>>>I will answer this for Jeroen.
>
>>>Chris, nobody is asking why the CSTAL team is attacking Genius
>>>(boring, no good for analysis and so on). Also the CSTAL team started
>>>the subject on the Mchess book-killer issue. Nobody is asking if the
>>>motives of the CSTAL team (attacking Genius and Mchess) are pure.
>>>That would be ridiculous, no?
>
>>Firstly what is a team ?
>
>>If you want to stuff me and TC in a team, you'll need to first check,
>>tighten and replace the ropes attaching his cannon to my deck.
>
>>Mchess killer book issues, I take the entirely opposite view to
>>Thorsten. Genius I agree with him, but his reasoning as to why Genius is
>>'boring' is incorrect.
>
>>Anyway, my motives are rarely pure, this I freely admit.
>
>>Now how about the attacks last year on Mchess and this year on Mchess ?
>>Can you explain the coincidence, or should the usual suspicious motives
>>start to apply ?
>
>
>>>We discuss computer chess here right?
>
>>Quite so. But when a demolition job (not entirely your doing, accepted)
>>gets done on another program/programmer on morality grounds - then there
>>are external factors which may well need discussing. Surely your'e not
>>going to censor me for bringing this up ....... ?
>
>
>>>The subject of Book-cooking belongs to that.
>>
>>Maybe, but only if totally divorced from naming names. You've been
>>naming names. Mchess, Sandro Nechi etc.
>
>
>Chris, you keep on saying:
>
>- "Rebel-team attacks Mchess"
>- "Are you motives pure"
>- "Anti Mchess campaign"
>
>and so on.
>
>Implying what?
>
>With my:
>
> "Chris, nobody is asking why the CSTAL team is attacking Genius
>  (boring, no good for analysis and so on). Also the CSTAL team started
>  the subject on the Mchess book-killer issue. Nobody is asking if the
>  motives of the CSTAL team (attacking Genius and Mchess) are pure."
>
>example I just turned the situation and (also) added:
>
>  "That would be ridiculous, no?"
>
>So my question was if the CSTAL team is allowed more then the REBEL
>team proving the contradiction in your statements. So nothing personal
>to you.
>
>If you (as a producer) are allowed to talk about other (competitive)
>products then so do I. Or?

It isn't a question of who is allowed to do what. presumably we're all
allowed to do whatever we think fit.

But my concern over the Mchess demolition remains.

1. It appears to be established on these news groups that Mchess is much
weaker than its SSDF grading because of 'special' techniques of killer
books and so on. I don't think anyone has used the word cheating, but
that is what is implied. And I use the word 'established' because of
various comments by various infrequent posters who refer to Mchess in
this way as if it is an article of faith that its books are cooked.

2. IMO the references to these cooked lines were started by people
associated with Rebel. I guess I may be wrong, but that's the impression
that I have, not entirely Rebel but certainly a sizeable part of it.
Certainly the constant repetition of the statement by Sandro Necchi
comes from the Rebel team.

3. I remain to be convinced that the Mchess team is doing anything
wrong, or anything different to anybody else.

4. Therefore I see the continuing attacks as unfair and unreasonable.

5. I then ask myself why they continue, and who is continuing them, and
to whose benefit is it to trash Mchess ?

6. Since my speciality is defending the apparently undefendable, and
being the lone voice of disagreement; I take a certain pleasure in
challenging you and all the others. There, see, I admit to impure
motives :) A purer motive is that the guy was in apparent trouble last
year with his distributor not paying him, we heard stories that he took
on a job outside of chess programming, and I don't like to see someone
who is down being kicked.

>
>You keep on saying "Rebel-team attacks Mchess", "Are you motives pure",
>"Anti Mchess campaign" and so on. Fact is that you don't know me at all.

1. Well, the Rebel team does seem to attack Mchess. My opinion, but it
seems so.

2. Are your motives pure ? I don't know you very well either, so I ask
......

3. It seems like a campaign to me.

>
>We met a few times at AEGON and laughed about specific things and it was
>fun meeting you but for the rest you know zero about me and my or
>Jeroens
>motives and I wish you stop with this.

Right now the position is confused. We can stop in the fog, or we can
clear it. One possibility would be to accept the Mchess clarification
and withdraw the allegations.

Another would be to challenge the Mchess statement.

I really don't see how it can be left as is. I mean is he cooking books
or not ? Its quite a serious allegation, no ?

>
>I remember our funny 2-way conversation about (hidden) book-learners
>in RGCC which you started by the way. Did I accuse you from attacking
>other commercial opponents? I didn't think so.

You possibly could have done; it could be seen to each commercial's
advantage to try and demolish the reputation of its rivals. I'm sure I'm
no better than most. Some do it with whispers, some with subtlety, some
say it out loud. I like to think I'm less susceptible to it because I'm
not in financial dependance on the chess, but who knows ....

>
>We both discovered a new development and reported.
>
>Fact is that the huge "book-cook" discussion 1.5 years ago in RGCC
>forced many programmers (including me) to write special software to
>handle book-cooks automatically by book-learning. Not to speak about
>the other advantages of book-learning.
>
>I would say that is a positive development due to that discussion.

I won't disagree with you here.

Chris Whittington


>
>- Ed Schroder -
>
>
>>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.