Author: Scott Carmichael
Date: 02:17:55 03/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On March 18, 1998 at 04:38:38, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Detlef Pordzik on March 17, 1998 at 19:50:04: > >>>So take my word for it that comp-comp learning is still in childhood >>>stage. So much to improve. And comp-comp learning is simply a cheat >>>as the goal is to get a higher elo on SSDF. It has nothing to do with >>>the strength of the chess engine. > >>>Blame me for my part in it. With Rebel9 I joined the club. Now I >>>step out. It was a mistake. I will not support this silly cooking >>>race any longer. Back to the roots which is the chess engine. > >>What I would like to ask - as you, of course, should be highly >>interested too, >>to clear the situation : > >I fully agree with you. If things get honest again (engine versus >engine) >I will be happy to join the SSDF again. But let's face it, first we had >to deal with book cooks, then the learners came and now we have to deal >with an unknown autoplayer from a competitor? > >This for me is just the limit. Till now everybody has made his >autoplayer public. Now we have a new fashion, a secret autoplayer. >Who is next? Why should I join this new fashion? > > >>do you see a chance, to get things back into balance, without SSDF >>finally loosing it's face - and what would you personally suggest, how >>this could work ? > >As I said before: > >- General accepted autoplayers also available for the public; >- Equal hash table sizes; >- Skip doubles; > >Remains the problem of book cooking as Thorsten correctly has pointed >out. Well I can live with that. > > >>Because the whole thing is just like after having thrown a rock into the >>pool - >>waves, waves + waves....but no solution in sight >>- and personally I'd really like to see one - >>and if it only were for the benefit of all...:-)) > >You are so right. > >I do not share Ossie Weiner's opinions in the way he has expressed >himself. I have no single evidence the chessbase autoplayer cheats. >Neither do I expect that from a respected company. But I should have >the chance to check that myself. It's called fair competition. > >Sofar I noticed: > >#1. The chessbase autoplayer doesn't save the opponents game. Maybe >opponents in that stage update their learner? Logical place no? And >now maybe this learner update is bypassed? For Rebel8/9 this could >be so true. I can't check. How can I judge? > >#2. The chessbase autoplayer changes colors. white-black-white and >so on. This is not COMMON auto232. Looking at my source code this >doesn't seem to influence the learner of Rebel. But how can I know >for sure? And what about other chess programs? Did the Swedish ask >the programmers if this white-black-white behavior influence their >learners? One thing for sure, they didn't ask me. And from a >programmers view of point this white-black-white behavior can easily >disturb their learner. > >Quite a mess... > >- Ed - > > >>ELVIS Is it not common tournament practice to alternate colors during play? Perhaps I am niave in this matter, but isn't the altenation of colors fair? From what Chessbase and Nicbase stastic have shown, White does have a better winning percentage.
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.