Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 08:25:17 01/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
>You tested the contents of Sandro Necchi's brain ? You looked at his >analysis notes for the Sicilian Najdorf Poisoned Pawn ? You were with >him when he tested variations and sub-variations on several programs ? > >And ? And ? This would be book-cooking ! Exactly the topic we talk about. Now you got it ! >>The games were not played by any human-opening-theory >>nor any human-games from database. > >Big deal. And this is your opinion only, not fact. This is not my opinion. I looked into a database containing 1.200.000 games. If anyone shows me a game played by any human that has nearly the same moves as my posted game, I will accept this. YOU call a fail-search in 1.200.000 database an OPINION ? >>And the answers played out fit to hiarcs6 answers. >>Other programs would have played different and would have thrown out >>mchess much earlier out of book. > >So what, do you want uniform behaviour from everything ? No - I just want to show that the line was made for hiarcs and not other programs. It was an ANTI-hiarcs6-line. >>Why are these lines in the book ? > >Because they got stored as data. > >>Who has played them WHERE when ? > >Doesn't matter, its just stored data. Leanr your way around it if you >don't like it. I am not playing like Hiarcs6 so I would not trap into it. Also other programs would not fall into the trap. >>I can tell you, because this was my point: >>Somewhere on an autoplayer mchess-experimental played them out against >>hiarcs6 commercial and then the winning-games were merged/added into the >>opening-book. >> >>THIS is the thing I am talking about. > >So what if autoplayer games are included in the book ? If the program >found the moves anyway (as it must have done) whats wrong with including >the moves as straight lookups, it saves time, no ? I have not proved IF mchess finds this moves without book too. This is a good idea. I will check this out... I want to repeat Dirk's statement here: Why not showing a message: This is a winning line against Hiarcs6, do you want to continue and lose it, or do you want to start another line ? The next step would be: the programmers give their amount of autoplayer games directly to the ssdf-guys. I think this will not lead us to anything. Latest software will always have better ratings because they implemented latest autoplayer winning-games. If the opponent comes out with a LATER version, he will participate from the advantages of releasing later ! >Why is this a problem for you ? Because there is no real competition if the opening book of program A has played out the line on an autoplayer long time before and program B has no other choice than to lose it. >>I have not get any comment from you on the specific opening-line I >>posted. >>No comment was made about the opening line Mchess played with black >>against CSTal in Paris. No comment from Marty about the posted line. > >So what. Are we supposed to be answering machines for everything ? No - instead they broadcast their advertising messages how nice and great the book is. You should not underestimate the customers chris. >>Instead of calling other people whatever insults, you should concentrate >>on the specific data mentioned. > >Thank you. I do but you don't notice. Aha. I see it vice versa. Sorry. >>When somebody gives data you COULD answer by showing other data or >>comment on the data. > >Precisely. I posted a detailed alternative explanation is the post to >which you just replied. Ed replied to it. Jeroen replied to it. You all >have in common that you snipped the explanation and did not refer to it. I have never seen a detailed alternative from you. All I saw was sarcastic statements about campaigns and all this mud. >Ok, think your own fixed stuff. You believe it so much that an >alternative view is seen as suitable only to be censored. Your sarcasm is no alternative for me too. Nobody wants to censor you unless you don't insult or offend people. If you are not able to discuss with people without insulting them... >> You try to claim a campaign against Mchess. >>This is wrong. > >I was just asking the questions. The questions never got answered. There >was a pattern in the two rounds of attack: both at Mchess release time. >Both times Rebel team members were heavily involved. This time Jeroen >saw fit to keep on repeating stuff about Necchi. As I said, I bought Mchess7 (very late, but lately I did it) and did some test games on my autoplayer system against hiarcs6 and was very astonished how often Mchess7 had theory meanwhile hiarcs6 was out. This continued moves over moves over moves without mchess thinking. In the same time I searched into the databases on my 3rd pc if this opening line was ever played somewhere before. Also I replayed the line with different programs and they would have played other moves than Hiarcs did. >Is looking for patterns not allowed anymore ? It is. But insulting people for nothing is not allowed. >Instead of answers, the messenger just got attacked instead. AHA ! >Instead of looking at the alternative explanation, the snipping tool got >used. Alternative explanations ? Which ? >Instead of participatory debate, the censors got appealed to. Participatory debate with you insulting people ? >I'll try again. > >There's some data posted here recently. Mchess SSDF game results, >against Genius, I believe. > >Roughly speaking, since I do this from memory: > >mchess5 beats genius3 15-5 or so. > >genius4 and 5 beat mchess5 15-5 or so > > >The generally accepted argument goes like this: we all know Mchess isn't >15-5 better than Genius, so the 15-5 result is cooked, due to the books. >When Genius team has a chance to fix the lines, they turn the result >round 5-15. Therefore Mchess is cooking books, Mchess is weaker than the >SSDF results indicate. QED. And, btw, Mchess is 'cooking', Genius is >'fixing' I would never argue the way you describe it. ONE reason I asked the ssdf guys about game-scores was: I wanted to see whats going on there ! Results are nice to other people, I am not interested in results. When I got the suspicion that something is foul I want to find out by looking into the game-scores WHAT is wrong there. If I would see these lines, no matter WHICH side "prepared" them, I would not like them... >Alternative argument goes like this: Once apon a time some programmer >did a lot of work on his book - this gave him an advantage. The other >computing programming teams started working on their books too, as a >counter. This process developed and continued year after year with lines >being cooked, fixed and cooked again. If you would have Hiarcs6 and Mchess7 and Rebel9 and you would let them play against each other instead of let them playing against CSTal, you would see that they don't do it this massively ! I would not call hiarcs6 or rebel9's book a killer-book ! When I relate the 3 books by watching the games they play, I would not say that the others do it the same way Mchess is doing it. I don't want to comment on Genius ! I have told my opinion that genius has not made any playing - strength progress since version 2/3 many times before. Without opening book and learning feature and /x-mode hash, genius would have the same strength of version 2/3. >The data 15-5 turned to 5-15 indicates *both* sides engaging in the >cooking-war or fixing-war or arms-race or whatever yoiu want to call it. >Mchess first, then Genius, only nobody actually knows who began it, and >nobody can ever stop it once it started. Note that this alternative >explantion doesn't try and apportion blame onto any one programming >team. You describe a tug of war but you don't show any data. Show me a line cooked by hiarcs6 or rebel9 team. >Now my gripe is this: you can call this process whatever you like, call >it evil book-cooking. Call it morally correct plugging holes, call it >what you like; but DON'T claim one side is 'plugging holes' and the >other side is 'cooking books'. You repeat yourself. >They are both part and parcel of the same >process. And if you ascribe moral correctness to one side, and moral >incorrectness to the other you're merely taking sides in a war; and >that's the point at which questions get asked as to why. As I said, I have all programs and feel a certain degree concerning this affect. And the master of this cooking is mchess7. I don't wanna comment about Genius ! :-) >Or, extracting the 'fact' that Mchess cooks its books based on the 15-5 >data, and ommitting the 'fact' that it gets countered, and presumably >counter-counter-countered in a never ending spiral is just a plain >cheating argument. You talk about FACTS. But you show no data. Your words would be FACTS if you would show the 20 games and would point on the openings and show me in the openings that the opponent side cooked too. But you DON'T show any data. >>Sometimes I agree with you. Sometimes with ed. >>Sometimes I disagree. There is no money and no campaign behind this >>phenomena. >>It has something to do with the fact that human beeings have different >>opinions. >>The fact that human beeings have different opinions is not reason to >>insult somebody ! >> I can have a different opinion than my best friend >>without calling them nasty things. > >Really. You think going for a censorship attempt, dismissing arguments >with the words blah-blah-blah, and accusations of 'disgusting' came from >me ? I do not censor you. Why should I ? >I think you see insults where there are arguments that you disagree >with. I see words but no evidence. >Chris Whittington
This page took 0 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.