Author: Dirk Frickenschmidt
Date: 03:37:35 03/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 1998 at 02:53:17, Keith Ian Price wrote: Hi Keith, as a user I understand and completely share your view about autoplaying! And just like you I find it a real improvement if an autoplayer changes colours after each game, like the Fritz5 autoplayer, which should be a standard feature for all of them. But I also understand the problems for the programmers in the age of outbooking by a combination of heavy book learning features combined with auto-testing. This combination allows you to play a long series of games against an opponent already rated in the SSDF *before* you release the program. Then you take out all losing (and perhaps drawing) games and melt the winning games into the book up to move x. Now the effect will be that if the two programs play against each other the book learning will lead the new program very fast to exactly those pre-played winning lines. The new program will simply repeat its long before generated auto-played wins (or draws). In effect the percentage of wins (and draws) will become much higher than the program's real playing strength ever could be. It's no cheat insofar as it repeats real wins gained by autoplaying before, but it's a *heavy* cheat considering the fact that it omits most or many of the real losses that would have happened without this kind of tuning. Under these circumstances it is hard for a programmer not to see his program being outboked by later programs, *if* he allows autoplaying by providing an autoplayer or allowing one to be used with his Dos-program. I am convinced that this problem has to be solved before the autoplayers can get their normal function back: to provide real results for users, testers and programmers without any twisting around with them in this - from my view - completely unacceptable way. Until now I see no way how this misuse could be prevented. But I hope either a a programmer agreement (unlikely) or some new technical ideas by someone like Bob Hyatt or other programmers could show us a solution. Missing autoplay features really mean a mess and something like having to stay in the computer chess stoneage for users. Not acceptable for long. So please programmers gather and find a solution! Kind regards from Dirk >On March 13, 1998 at 05:06:24, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>Posted by Moritz Berger on March 12, 1998 at 18:34:36: >> >>>Fritz swaps sides (black, white, black, white, ...) after each game. >> >>Why is that? >>Any information? >> >>b) Why this "white, black, white" behavior? Sofar I must conclude >>that this behavior does not disturb the Rebel9 learner. But what >>about other programs? >> >>- Ed Schroder - > >I think they wrote their special autoplayer like that. It is an upgrade >that I'd like to see with the autoplayer. At least an option to have it >alternate. I think that more interoperablity between chess programs will >be a bigger selling point than a 20-point increase in ELO. I do not >think I will purchase many more programs until a modern autoplayer >standard is defined and included. Fritz 6 is not an upgrade for me even >if Fritz 5 maintains its Number 1 status. No autoplayer for the common >user, no purchase by me. I will probably buy Nimzo '98 since Chrilly >included a built-in autoplayer, but I think it is time for a standard >interface--one that includes TCP/IP for network play, and involves no >proprietary cables--to be developed. This would be a good forum for the >Standards discussion. An interface to the chess servers, with, perhaps, >an unswitchable whisper command to identify the program and discourage >cheating, would also be desirable as a standard feature of high-end >programs. Most purchasers of high-end programs buy more than one, to >play them off against each other, and facilitating this end may help >sales for the innovaters. > >What is your opinion, Ed? > >TIA, >kp
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.