Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:49:08 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 I'm not sure why alternating colors would affect learning. In fact, it ought to work that way no matter what, because most humans are not going to play 100 games as black, unless they are trying to prepare against a specific opening. I'd be concerned if it was possible for the opponent's auto232 interface to terminate a game without my program being told, because I do execute my "result learning" at the end of a game when I can figure out whether I lost or won or drew. I'd hope no one could do that to me...
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.