Author: Chessfun
Date: 13:51:28 03/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2001 at 16:13:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 06, 2001 at 11:46:36, Brian Kostick wrote: > >>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 didn't say you had to accept anything. By your definition, you will be >forced to ignore the results in each of the WCCC events, each of the WMCCC >events, each of the older ACM events, each of the paderborn events, each of >the many other events where computers played but had their authors present and >able to make adjustments to the book or the program between rounds. Note that >that is _every_ major computer event ever held. And you just invalidated every >one of them. > >But continuing, DB was altered a bit after round 2 of the Kasparov match 2. >Rebel was not the same rebel used in every one of the GM challenge games that >Ed played. The SSDF has allowed bugfixes or versions slightly newer than the >versions available commercially. They even allowed non-commercially-available >versions of commercial programs (the famous hidden autoplayer discussion). > >If you use your reasoning, you have _no_ data whatsoever to go on except for >the 'basement tournaments' where someone buys a copy of several programs and >plays them in a tournament "unchanged" between rounds. > > > > >> >> 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. > > >You have already disqualified SSDF because they have done exactly what you don't >want to allow, on a few occasions. I believe on those few occasions the effect to be minimal as they still use the release and only update as a patch is available for all consumers. In the cases I remember the only one that had any amount of games was Junior 6 prior to the release of the A version. The proportion of games is likely no more than 10% and the effect on it's rating no more than 10 points as I recall Uri and I wrote on this subject last year. Sarah. I would also hope that you don't think the >"same" Kasparov is playing in every tournament he enters. Kasparov is evolving >just like the chess computers are. To compare his play of today with his play >of 20 years ago would show just how far he has come. To pick _any_ single event >and say "this represents _the_ Kasparov" would be wrong. > >Crafty is Crafty... whether it is version 18.3 or 18.4. Just because version >18.4 fixed a small bug in 18.3, does not mean that if you start with 18.3 that >you should stick with it. Humans self-correct bugs in their chess playing all >the time. At least the ones that are getting better do. I don't see why this >should be an issue at all since every available computer event over the last >30 years has been run in _exactly_ the way you don't like. Personally I have >been guilty of only a few between-the-round changes. Chances are you add more >bugs than you remove with so little time to write and test the changes. But I >have sat around in the tournament hall and talked to programmer after programmer >as he madly made changes to fix problems he saw in the previous round...
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.