Author: Brian Kostick
Date: 08:46:36 03/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2001 at 10:53:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 05, 2001 at 22:48:59, Brian Kostick wrote: > >>On March 05, 2001 at 16:08:48, Andreas Schwartmann wrote: >> >>>On March 04, 2001 at 11:51:18, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>> >>>>On March 04, 2001 at 10:36:15, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>>> >>>>>Die B.27 ist okay, unterscheidet sich kaum von der Paderborn-Version. >>>>>Gruss, Uli >>>> >>>> >>>>brilliant. i ask because i don't want that anybody feels disadvantaged. >>>>if anybody thinks he has a better version he is allowed to upgrade >>>>between the rounds. >>> >>> >>>And that's completely rubbish. If you update engines between rounds, what use is >>>the outcome of such a tournament? There is no consistency in this tourney! An >>>updated engine is a DIFFERENT engine, so you might as well not call it a tourney >>>but a set of engine matches. Hell, you might even start such a "tourney" with >>>Fritz 1 and end up with Fritz 7 ... and what would this say about Fritz's >>>playing strength? He started weak but ended up the winner nontheless? Har har. >>>In my opinon, the engine version that started the tournament should be the very >>>engine that ends it. No changing of horses in midstream or else the results get >>>worthless! >>> >>>Imagine Linares ... Kasparov gets bored in midtourney and gets exchanges by >>>Kramnik ... Shirov does not play to good, so he sends in his brother (does he >>>have one?) ... but that would not be a tourney anymore. Just like your Odyssee >>>with updated engines is no tourney in my opinion. >>> >>>Just my $0.02. >>> >>>Any comments? >>> >>>Andreas >>> >>> >>> >>>www.andreas-schwartmann.de >> >> >> I think I understand your point. I also note that some are objecting, finding >>no fault with changes between rounds. >> >> For an example let's say I am to tout Nimzo. Now I may want several tuned >>books, anti-Fritz, anti-Crafty, anti-Whatever. Also I can tuned Nimzo engines >>parameters, if fact use several versions of Nimzo. (99, 2000, 7.32, 8, ect...) >>Its author may even go so far as to change code and recompile between rounds? >>After all this it's fair play? No one objects? Obviously some DO object. Not to >>how an individual host a tournament, but to how the results maybe presented. >> >> All these changes designed to selectively defeat opponents and claim the glory >>(customer base, money, rating, pride, ect...)? I personally would find it a >>warped glory if it was not the identical product that I released for public >>consumption. > > >Then warped glory is what you get. Because it happens all the time. When we >won our second World Computer Chess Championship with Cray Blitz, we made a >significant change after round 2 where we lost a game we should not have lost >due to a bad change I made prior to the tournament's start. > >_every_ computer chess event I have attended has had programmers making changes >between rounds. From something as simple as a different book to avoid repeating >an opening you just lost in the last round, to adding some analysis for a book >line your next-round opponent seems to want to play given the chance. The >changes might be more complex modifications to source code to fix a bug or >cover up a hole you found in the last round. You might find something in your >time allocation code you didn't like and change it to behave more like you think >it should. > >Does that mean all the WCCC/WMCCC/ACM event results are bogus? I don't >think so. I have played in many _human_ tournaments myself. And I often spent >a lot of time modifying my _own_ book to get an advantage against a known >opponent. Humans do this all the time. Is _that_ also bogus? > > > >> >> IMO, such between round changes make for warped and useless results except to >>maybe some engine authors or a few select others. Definitely not what many of us >>expect when we look at tournament results and try to form some impression or >>conclusion. Regards, Brian K. > >I would say at least it is no worse than playing on with an older version that >has had a known bug fixed in a newer version. Why should a program have to >suffer on with a known problem after it has been fixed? Commercial programs >release bug fixes as well. Should _those_ also not be used? It is not for you to say that I have to accept someone elses warped glory. I maintain the right to be selective. We've seen one major computer chess game accept lowered status due to defective time control. Their representative said something similar to: We accept this, it's our fault the time control does not work properly. A gracious acceptance of reality. Yet when the patch came out of course we look foreward to future tournaments with better standing. I will view tounament results that are more representative of the user product. i.e. Chessfun's results, SSDF, ect... I maintain: If you go to tournament unprepared, you lose. As you are fond of pointing out: We agree to disagree. With respect for your chess programming, Brian K.
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.