Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 08:56:42 01/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
Pointless. Ed, Jeroen and Thorsten you can keep your view. I'll keep mine. Bye. Chris Whittington On January 01, 1998 at 11:25:17, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>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 0.01 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.