Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 05:26:18 12/31/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 1997 at 05:41:52, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Chris Whittington on December 30, 1997 at 18:37:34: > >>>Chris, I feel that it is a pity you pointed an interesting discussion >>>in such a direction. > >>Well, you see, I feel it is such a pity you pointed it in the direction >>of a specific programming team. > >You implied a lot untrue allegations about possible attacks on a >commercial opponent with the intention to hurt. In the meantime >I could imply the same about you, or? > >You have no evidence of your allegations. I asked you to stop this. >You did not. In fact with your previous contribution you have lighted >up the fire. > >Therefore I have given this case to the moderators in charge. > >Book-cooking belongs to the area of computer chess. Therefore we talk >about it. It has to do with playing strength. So we discuss it. There >is no intention to hurt, those are your words not mine. Did anybody >accuse the CSTAL team of hitting a commercial opponent? After all the >CSTAL team started the book-cook topic. Why Chris? > >You better should read the postings of your own team first and ask >yourself the question if these postings were posted to hurt Mchess. > >I assume your answer is no. > >If so, then don't try to accuse another party of such a thing. There >is no logic in that. > >Or did the CSTAL team (using your words now) try to point it in the >direction of a specific programming team with the initial postings? > >Silly all this don't you think? > >- Ed - > > >>Anyway, your view is clear and fixed, Mchess has stated its position. I >>prefer to err on the side on non-suspicion as to intention, but, as is >>clear, we live in a suspicious community. > >>Chris Whittington > >>> Still, I wish you a happy 1998 as I wish everybody >>>here at CCC al the best for the next year! > >>>Best regards, Jeroen With amusement, I note Ed Schroder's attampt to get me censored or banned or whatever by the moderators. I stick by my position: 1. Marty Hirsch has denied in his post here on CCC that the Mchess book is fixed or targeted or whatever on any specific opponent. He was prepared to answer in detail the key questions. 2. Jeroen Noomen (Ed's opening book editor) has stated, after all the arguing, that the Mchess book is cooked in this way. 3. Neither Ed, nor any of his team, ever makes any attack type comment on any other program; Ed (and his team) is very careful not to do this. Except with Mchess .Last year, and now this year also. Note the use of the word 'disgusting' with reference to the Mchess programming. 4. When I point this out, and ask why, and challenge the basis of the attacks, Ed reponds with trying to close down the thread, counter-accusing, muddying the issue by introducing Thorsten, and finally by trying to get me censored by the moderators. 5. Ed also accuses me of making untrue allegations etc. etc. without ever specifically referring to any concrete point. Now presumably the moderators can decide whether trying to get answers and driving on with one's point is unacceptable. Or whether it is acceptable to call another programming team 'disgusting'. Ed's appeal is basically a clique-appeal. It says please close ranks against this troublemaker who is asking difficult questions. Shut him up. And, finally, this board is getting very fond of targetting one specific individual, isolating, and hitting him. It started of course with RT, was done to KK a few days back, and to Mchess now. I dislike the way that almost everybody joins in, it reminds me of in-group / out-group activity, where to be *in* you have to agree with the in-group and attack the common enemy. With KK it was particularly bad with everybody piling on. Thus a common faux-ideology and common faux-facts develop. My role is to provide alternative positions. Censor me if you like. Anyway, some snippets of the threads below: 1. Note the constant repetition of the Sandro Necchi statement. I call constant repetition a campaign. 2. Note the use of the word 'disgusting' referring to Mchess book programming. I call using this word an attack. 3. Note Ed's desire to muddy the waters by linking in Thorsten as 'in the CSTal team', when Ed knows perfectly well I haven't spoken to Thorsten for several weeks. This is the start point of the thread. Note that Thorsten is not making any attacks, just asking questions. ======================================================================== Posted by Thorsten Czub on December 25, 1997 at 12:22:40: Has anybody collected information concerning the chess-strength of Mchess7 ? Can we, relating to Mchess6, estimate ELO points from the predecessor ? 50 points increase ? 50 points down ? What do you think ? Give me some feedback please. I am trying to measure the playing-strength of it myself in the moment and would like to get some impressions of people who had the version much earlier and have made some deeper exoerience than I have since the delivery of it 22nd december. I would say Mchess7 has really tough problems with fast-searchers. But this is very normal to me since it has very speculative evaluations... Is Mchess7 stronger or weaker than mchess6 ? Any ideas ? Now comes Thorsten's allegation of book cooking against Mchess =================================================== Posted by Thorsten Czub on December 26, 1997 at 10:59:45: In Reply to: Re: M-Chess Pro7 : strength ?? posted by Fernando Villegas on December 26, 1997 at 08:27:40: >On the results of my experience. I compare what happens in games against >MCP6 and with his succesor. With both I lose, but the last is faster and >sharper to do it. Better ending in MY feeling. You asked personal >opinions and that's what I have given. No test, just my playing. I believe you Fernando. My mood while watching Mchess7 reduces more and more. I have seen bishop-game where Mchess was 27 moves deep in book meanwhile hiarcs computed a while. Now I see c28 vienna game happening and we are in the 32.move and mchess still in book. One game after the other is cooked out somewhere else (sandro necci, or in massive autoplayer-games-merged into many booklines), and I don't see much sense in doing this. WHO can trust that these games, if played under the same conditions as in the original "citchen" , will not result in the same LOSS for hiarcs ? I play 100 games hiarcs6 vs. mcp7 and make an opening book out of the 30 losses of hiarcs6. Now I put these 30 games into a book. When stupid customer or ssdf-guy plays mchess7 vs. hiarcs6 he will get openings beginning in exactly these 30 losses and also some other openings caused by whatever circumstances. I think this helps mchess7 to get a better score at all. And hiarcs gets a weaker one. But hiarcs was released before mcp7, so it cannot defend much. Ok - they all have learning algorithms, but I doubt that these mechanism will always help...not from my experience, what I have seen. Now Jeroen jumps in - claiming that Mchess is over-rated in the SSDF and quoting (again) the Sandro Necchi comment ======================================================================== Posted by Jeroen Noomen on December 26, 1997 at 11:52:34: In Reply to: Re: M-Chess Pro7 : strength ?? posted by Thorsten Czub on December 26, 1997 at 10:59:45: >My mood while watching Mchess7 reduces more and more. >I have seen bishop-game where Mchess was 27 moves deep in book meanwhile >hiarcs computed a while. >Now I see c28 vienna game happening and we are in the 32.move and mchess >still in book. One game after the other is cooked out somewhere else >(sandro necci, or in massive autoplayer-games-merged into many >booklines) Dear Thorsten, there have been many postings before about the way MChess' book has been made. I once talked to Sandro Necchi in the AEGON tournament and he simply admitted that he was 'outbooking' all the opponents. Inclu- ding Genius and Rebel. IMO MCP is overrated in the swedish list. It gains many points this way, which can be verified simply by starting an autoplayer match between MCP and Genius/Rebel or Hiarcs. You will see a lot of these games..... If you found out more of this, please post it in CCC! >I think this helps mchess7 to get a better score at all. Exactly! Precisely my point. >And hiarcs gets >a weaker one. But hiarcs was released before mcp7, so it cannot defend >much. And with the next release the lines are repaired and Hiarcs gets a normal score versus MCP. But the damage is already done and the points are gone. >Ok - they all have learning algorithms, but I doubt that these mechanism >will always help...not from my experience, what I have seen. Interesting point af view. I think if all programs have a booklearner we are at the same point as at the beginning, when nobody had a learner... Sometimes I am getting tired of these book wars. Why not turn to normal theory that has been played before and let the programs find out what happens? That's fair and says more about the strength of a program in comparison with these bookkiller-lines... Best regards, Jeroen Now we have a refernence to Mchess from Jeroen ====================================== Note the use of the word 'disgusting' with reference to an alleged Mchess programming behaviour. I call this an attack. Note also the agreement with Thorsten (so please stop referring to the CStal team as if CW and TC are in agreement) ======================================================================== Posted by Jeroen Noomen on December 28, 1997 at 11:49:41: In Reply to: Re: M-Chess Pro7 : strength ?? posted by Thorsten Czub on December 27, 1997 at 05:39:21: On December 27, 1997 at 05:39:21, Thorsten Czub wrote: Thorsten, I completely agree with you on this subject. I cannot see why people try to defend 40-moves opening lines ending with +4 and an easy win. This is disgusting and not in the interest of CUSTOMERS who want to buy a chess program. Regards, Jeroen >>I think you misunderstand what we wrote. Of course the learner-option > >Right. Learning function that works is passive defense against active >cooked lines of opponents ! >I have nothing against this. >But putting a mass of deep lines in a book that were produced at home >with autoplaying against the commercial enemy-versions is nothing >passive. >This is an attack and increases the tug-of-war. > >>is not the point, we were talking about cooked lines. In reaction on a >>posting by Thorsten, who found out in a game MCP versus Hiarcs that >>MCP played 37 moves of 'theory' and left the book with a +4 score. >> >>THAT is a development I dislike. > >Right. I know that the learning function of Mchess6 was not that >brilliant. >So what shall i have in marty programming a better one in mchess7. >But the cooked lines are the problem. > > >> >>Regards, Jeroen Another posting from Jeroen, again referrign to the Sandro Necchi statement. =========================================================== Posted by Jeroen Noomen on December 28, 1997 at 14:18:00: In Reply to: Re: M-Chess Pro7 : strength ?? posted by Robert Hyatt on December 28, 1997 at 13:26:36: >So deep lines don't necessarily mean Mchess cooked anything, they could >represent a game that was played and included. When I talked to Sandro Necchi several years ago at the AEGON tournament, he explained to me why MChess scored so well versus other programs: 'We are outbooking them'. To me this explains everything. >But the days of knowing which commercial engine is best are long gone. >They are all good. But that's all we know now... I completely agree with you on this one. The difference is probably very marginal. All programs have their pro's and contra's. I like The King for finding mates very, very quickly; I like Genius for its play in positions with weak pawns; I like Hiarcs for its powerful play; I like the way Fritz is able to complicate positions; and I like Rebel because it is allround and very good at king's attacks. All programs have their own style and the difference is most certainly not big. Regards, Jeroen Posted by Jeroen Noomen on December 29, 1997 at 12:57:52: In Reply to: Re: M-Chess Pro7 : strength ?? posted by Chris Whittington on December 29, 1997 at 06:37:08: Agsin Jereon refers to the Sandro Necchi statement: ======================================== On December 29, 1997 at 06:37:08, Chris Whittington wrote: Dear Chris, I read your comments on Marty's posting. I have the feeling that you also have your doubts on what is going on! Furthermore I talked to Sandro Necchi a few years ago at the AEGON Tournament. On my question why MCP did so well in testmatches (he stated MCP would beat Genius 3 by a margin of 90%), he simply replied 'because we are outbooking Genius'. What do you think of that!? Jeroen confirms that he considers Mchess cooks the books (that Sandro Necchio comment comes again) ============================================== Posted by Jeroen Noomen on December 30, 1997 at 16:44:21: In Reply to: Re: M-Chess Pro7 : strength ?? posted by Chris Whittington on December 30, 1997 at 10:52:17: >But my concern over the Mchess demolition remains. There is no demolition, just the mentioning of facts. <snip> >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. Which is a fact, so what's wrong to mention this? <snip> . >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 ? Which was confirmed by one of the team-members.... Thorsten, stung by Ed Scroder's attack on him, writes: ========================================= Posted by Thorsten Czub on December 29, 1997 at 20:05:15: In Reply to: Re: M-Chess Pro7 : strength ?? posted by Ed Schröder on December 29, 1997 at 19:24:11: >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? > >We discuss computer chess here right? > >The subject of Book-cooking belongs to that. > >- Ed Schroder - Couldn't you construct an analogy without me appearing as always the bad guy attacking somebody. I don't see my remarks about my experience with Mchess7 as an attack on Mchess, nor do I see my explanations/ideas about Lang's search-mechanism as an attack on Richard. I think you maybe will agree into this too. But if somebody cannot read between the lines I am again the evil guy ! Hm. You cannot talk about ONE program (Y) without offending (X-Y) programs/teams. The best is always to talk advertising sentences like Marty has done in his answers concerning the Mchess7 strength thread. Maybe Dieter and Frederic are right, it is better to be diplomatic and to decrease the level. Too much detail is a damokles sword above our heads. Gliding over the shallow surface is much easier to accept than diving into deep sea. Ok - if this is your wish... I will do more small talk and be nice to anybody, and will not say anything detailed or concrete anymore despite comments about the weather, the hair-color or the girls seen at the championship in Paris. If this is your wish, lets talk about girls and the weather instead of computerchess. How about some nice lobsters ? Signed: Mr.Saitek, Mr.D++, Mr. Dominator, Mr. MMV, Mr.Rexchess, Mr.M-Chess, Mr. ChessMaster2000, Mr.MachIII, Mr.CSTal, Mr.Hiarcs1-6, Mr.Shredder, Mr.Virtual-Chess, Mr.Rebel8-9, Mr.Nimzo98, Mr. --- Sleep well.... And especially for chris a political comment: sleep on the left side of your bed ! drive on the left track of the road ! But use your right brain side, 'cause the left-side is senseless. Ed replies to Thorsten, showing that Ed isn't really interested in anything other than getting me to shut up. He answers no questions. Counters with 'you're just as bad, so why not be quiet'; adn finally (later) resorts to an appeal for censorship to the moderators. ======================================================================== Posted by Ed Schröder on December 30, 1997 at 09:03:55: In Reply to: Re: M-Chess Pro7 : strength ?? posted by Thorsten Czub on December 29, 1997 at 20:05:15: >Posted by Thorsten Czub on December 29, 1997 at 20:05:15: >In Reply to: Re: M-Chess Pro7 : strength ?? posted by Ed Schröder on >December 29, 1997 at 19:24:11: >>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? >>We discuss computer chess here right? >>The subject of Book-cooking belongs to that. >>- Ed Schroder - >Couldn't you construct an analogy without me appearing as always the bad >guy attacking somebody. >I don't see my remarks about my experience with Mchess7 as an attack on >Mchess, nor do I see my explanations/ideas about Lang's search-mechanism >as an attack on Richard. I think you maybe will agree into this too. >But if somebody cannot read between the lines I am again the evil guy ! >Hm. You did nothing wrong IMO posting about Genius and Mchess. I just turned the situation because Chris keeps on saying "Rebel-team attacks Mchess", "Are you motives pure", "Anti Mchess campaign" and so on. So my question was if the CSTAL team is allowed more then the REBEL team proving the contradiction in Chris statements. So nothing personal to you. More in my answer to Chris. - Ed -
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.