Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 09:29:43 12/31/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 1997 at 11:01:43, Jeroen Noomen wrote: > >> >>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. > >Which is different from what the openingbook editor of MChess said >previously. And what is different from what Thorsten, I and all the >others >(read the magazines, please!) found out. Which you haven't verified. >So the denying of Marty is strong enough for you to rule out all the >other facts. Yes. Its enough to make me look for alternatives to the accepted explanation that he is somehow 'cheating'. Maybe he's being truthful ? Can happen, you know. > >>2. Jeroen Noomen (Ed's opening book editor) has stated, after all the >>arguing, that the Mchess book is cooked in this way. > >Which was supported by me by way of facts. No it hasn't. you confuse fact with strongly held opinion. Some data has been presented showing deep lines in book, and then high evaluations. You then interpret this data with opinion, and call this opinion: fact. >And has also been concluded >by others. Ah, you're right by democracy ? :) I prefer validity of argument, but anyway ... > Besides, it was not me who started this discussion. True, it was Thorsten. But after it started who referred to the Sandro Necchi statement five or six times in a matter of a few days ? This gives the impression of an axe to grind. Once ok, but over and over ? I mean we're intelligent people, if you write it once, we can remember, no need for all the repetition. > Further- >more I conclude that > >a) You have never verified the facts, nor tried out yourself if these > findings were true. >b) You sidestep the facts and point all the blame on the Rebel-team, > which sounds more like an allegation to me, because it is not based > on facts, but on your subjective feelings. >c) Your way of discussing is to attack others, instead of listening to > arguments and facts. > >Sorry, I don't like this way of discussing and I don't want to get on >with it this way. Clever. Except that (a - YOU never verified), (b - YOU sidestep the facts) and (c YOUR way of discussing ....) above are all personal attacks from you to me - apparently not your chosen discussion method ? Try 'projection' in a psychobabble encyclopedia. > >>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. > >Wrong reading again. This is not said about MCP, but about book-cooking >in general. 'disgusting' referred to 40 moves deep and +4 evaluation, which is supposed to be exhibited by Mchess. The quote was in response to a thread specifically about Mchess. It was preceded with 'i agree with you' - again specifically over an mchess post. >Chris, what do you want? Clean clarity. For you to stop seeing this in terms of my motivation and more in terms of the actual content. To present an alternative scenario to the 'cheating book-cooking' explanation. > What is your point? That there's an alternative explanation to the Mchess book than that being put forward. > Are you trying >to provoke a censorship? That would be interesting, hmmmm ? What makes you think that a challenge such as I'm making is a ripe case for censoring ? Just because I'm putting forward a lone case that apparently nobody else agrees with ? > >>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. > >See above. I feel your way of writing is an allegation. You are not >discussing facts, but throwing dirt at the Rebel-team. I am sorry for >this word, but that's the way I see it. Your'e too involved. You don't understand why or how CW can possibly be disagreeing and challenging you both; after all, aren't we all in the same boat with common interests ? So you've generated a suspicion-based analysis - what is he doing this for - its just dirt. Try considering that there might be another explanation for the Mchess book. And that you got it wrong. And that you're therefore out of order in using words like 'disgusting'. > >>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'. > >There you go again! No need for comments. It was black and white. Repeating 'again' doesn't make a case, you know. Not even after 6 times. > >>Ed's appeal is basically a clique-appeal. It says please close ranks >>against this troublemaker who is asking difficult questions. Shut him >>up. > >You are not asking difficult questions. Your way of 'discussing' is >trying to convince others by means of strong talk. Anyway, I am not >impressed. I am more concerned about your allegations towards me. I >thought this was a place to discuss facts and interesting subjects, >but the way you put things this is impossible. Yup, the allegation is that you jumped to fast, false and suspicious conclusion about the Mchess book; and that you then tried to hammer this conclusion into the general consciousness, by repetition and suggestions that everybody else (reviewers, magazines etc. etc.) thought the same. The lone disagreeing voice to be dealt with by an appeal to the censors. > >>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. > >Finally I want so say that you cannot have an opinion about this >subject, >because you have never done tests, played autoplayer games, or tried to >find out in a different way if all these statements were true or not. You have no idea ! I have autoplayer capacity for 100 tournament games per day. I test loads. And I certainly try in different ways to find out about these allegations. So I reach a different conclusion to you. Of course this means 'I cannot have an opinion'. And you accuse me of personal argument ..... >So you are posing your 'right' in an aggressive way, giving me the >impression that all the facts, found out by so many people, are not >counting for you. Sorry Chris, I am not at all impressed by words, I >count only facts. Sorry, but I always have found that when the other side in an argument starts appealing to 'facts' that they've lost already. At the risk of repetition your 'facts' are actually only your strongly held opinions. And your opinions can be wrong. So please, lets not try and dress up our opinions as 'undeniable fact', eh ? > >>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. > >You call it a campaign, but you don't want to verify this statement. So >you are sidestepping facts. Er, sorry ? Support for the contention that its a campaign was given as the constant repetition of the Necchi statement. Once is once. Six times is a campaign. > >>2. Note the use of the word 'disgusting' referring to Mchess book >>programming. I call using this word an attack. > >As said before, the book-cooking was referred to as disgusting. And it was the book-cooking of Mchess to which you were referring. > >>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 > >As you can read, I am confirming Thorsten's view and opinion. The Sandro >Necchi comment was brought up first in this one, which is a comment that >is very interesting to know. I am sure you would post it as well, if you >would know about it. Its located 30 places in my brain now. I can hardly not know it. However, as pointed out before, opening book programmers have a great tendency to over-rate their contribution. I prefer the opinion of the chess programmer himself, which is why I take Necchi's comments with salt, pinch of. > >>======================================================================== >>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. > > > >RIGHT! This is referring to book-cooking IN GENERAL. And YES, I find >this disgusting! Where is the reference to MCP???? You simply throw >this one in, putting these words in my mouth! I don't accept that. Because Mchess was the subject of the thread. ( Re: M-Chess Pro7 : strength ??) Because Mchess was referred to specifically as the program with the long lines and the high evals out of book in the preceding thread that you agreed with. (quote - I completely agree with you on this subject) Because no other specific program had been mentioned in connection with book-cooking. And so on. > >I am now stopping this thread, because I am quite angry about the way >you treat this. You are getting personal all the time. I am having >enough of this. Fine, but have an alternative explanation for the Mchess book first ...... 1. Commercial books (until recently) are constrained by size. What can you fit on a floppy or two - not much. 2. programmers can go for various pathways (a) a relatively shallow, but wide book (b) a deep but very specific book (c) something between the two 3. Mchess went down the (b) pathway way back. Lines like Najdorf poisoned pawn, French Winawer, Urusov gambit are endlessly played by its tournament book. Mchess must have the narrowest book of all the programs. Because the lines chosen are usually quite sharp and unbalanced, this gives rise to reasonably exciting games, some of the time, at least. 4. I have no problem with using (forcing) a few narrow book lines. Its the way many humans play - know a few openings well; fine idea. 5. All (most) commercial programs develop their books. The development of the Mchess book is, as a result of design decision (b) taken long ago, to fiddle with, extend, refine the tips of the narrow book lines. I see this as extendiing opening theory. 6. Probably, each year, Mchess gets some (small) advantage from this. Every year, because his lines are narrow, the other commercial programs plug the gaps shown by Necchi, maybe they create traps for Mchess, who knows ? Every year Necchi works some more, every year the others counter him. This is all made possible only because of the (b) design - humans can cope with the small size. 7. As the opponent programs lengthen their counter lines, so does Necchi, and this whole process (of which you are a part) leads to these long lines with side-traps that you call disgusting. 8. I know, from my own observations with tthe CSTal book (which is not 'cooked' in any way, but is simply enormous, and just compiled from PGN files without any human weightings added), that sometimes it can exit book, after a long line, with totally won game. it can also exit totally lost. So I know that these high evalaution book exits can occur without any human intervention to the book lines. 9. I also know that since Mchess plays narrow opening lines, and repeats over and over the same line, that a high density of high evaluation exits can occur quite naturally, without devious preparation by the book creators. 10. When Necchi works on his narrow lines, you call this book-cooking. When the other works on counters, you call this plugging gaps or whatever. When Necchi works on counter-counters, this is book-cooking ? The others on counter-counter-counter is, of course, plugging gaps. Necchi - bad; others - good, bit of a trivial analysis, no ? So what do I conclude from all this ? That the whole process is complex. It arises from interactions between programs, the SSDF list, book tweakers, the specific narrowness of the Mchess book; and that Mchess is a cog in this process, not a prime mover. That book development, counter, and counter-counter, is chicken and egg. there's no point blaming one side, when it takes two (actually more) to keep it going. That Mchess games manifest the behaviour most often is the result of a design decision taken long ago (which would not have been predicted to lead to this situation), not some current underhand intention. That, unless Mchess takes the decision to build a very large CD book, with a wide opening range, their team has really very little choice but to continue with chicken and egg, counter and counter-counter. And, finally, that the whole of the many threads on CCC have been basically saying "Mchess bad guys, Mchess really is weaker than SSDF suggests". I object. I will carry on objecting. You can try and get the moderators to censor me, but I still object. I see it as unfair, unreasonable and unpleasant; and worse, as apart of a pattern of mob-ideology, ostracism and kicking of the weak which started with RT, went on to KK, and now targets Mchess. And if I make myself thoroughly unpopular fighting it, then so be it. Chris Whittington > >Jeroen
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.