Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:31:56 03/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2001 at 17:10:56, Ed Schröder wrote: >On March 26, 2001 at 13:56:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>Hello People, >> >>Why design a protocol for auto232 player? >> >>That is the basic question. >> >>My interpretation is that this protocol needs to >>be followed to play games at the auto232 player then. >> >>The protocol as designed by Chrilly and Stefan is >>having a number of commands. >> >>The most important is that one is called 'slave' and the >>other is 'master'. Now being master says shit about whether >>you play better chess, but it says something about what >>your function is within the protocol. >> >>If you are master, then your function is to start the game >>and afterwards ship your opponent the command to save the game. >> >>Let's first discuss the chesspartner interface which is used for >>Gambit Tiger. Gambit Tiger is giving very little problems on the >>auto232 player, let's start mentionning that. It doesn't have >>big demands to play a game. It's happy very soon. No need to >>have a machine with zillions of megabytes of RAM, no need to >>have 7.5 GB of EGTBs on the harddisk before it start playing. >> >>It plays no problems there. >> >>however, WHY does it have an UNMARKED checkbox by default >>to let the other guy save the game when Tiger is Master. >> >>This means the opponent is by default NOT ALLOWED to save the >>game. >> >>This is very unfair behaviour. >> >>It's like playing a grandmaster for the first time, then >>ship the grandmaster to a clinic. They operate him and he has >>lost all memories about the game! >> >>Of course you can avoid this by difficult programming. So saving >>the game during the game already. Learning during the game etcetera. >> >>BUT WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PROTOCOL THEN? >> >>In my opinion it is UNFAIR to by default leave this checkbox unmarked. >> >>In the default settings it must be marked! > > >It is no problem to set the option "marked" as default. I will forward >the topic to Lex. Maybe he has his reasons, I don't know. > >One plausible reason is that people don't have an interest at all to >have the games saved twice. Of course you as a programmer want to have >the games saved in your own format. > >But then chess programmers are not in the majority concerning the volume >of end-users who only care about a wellknown format such as having the >games in PGN. > >So I think you are in the minority here, buy hey the option is there >and that is the main important thing. > >Ed > I read the issue as "hey, the interface is _not_ telling my program that the game has ended so I am not learning anything (ie book learning or whatever)". This shows a terrible weakness in the protocol... where one side has to be the "master" and the other has to be the "slave". A plus for the winboard protocol, in fact... which doesn't make that kind of design decision. I would basically agree with Vincent that if a end-of-game sentinel is going to be sent, it should be sent as a default, and should have to be turned off to eliminate it, rather than having to turn it on to enable it. I can see room for _great_ mischief in autoplayer games, simply by choosing defaults that favor one engine over another. > > > >>The same applies to chessbase products but even worse. >> >>First it is very worried about having the right openings book to >>auto232 play. Secondly it wanted more hashtables and at least a >>machine with 128mb RAM. Further it wants all EGTBs installed on harddisk. >> >>Only after all those criteria are met, then finally fritz wants to >>auto232 play. >> >>The first box you see then it already has by DEFAULT UNMARKED a markbox >>which will ship a 'save game' command to the opponent after the game. >> >>This is pretty unfair! >> >>So it wants itself the BEST POSSIBLE conditions, like at least 128mb RAM, >>a lot of EGTB installed. Hundreds of megabytes of harddisk for a big >>openingsbook etcetera. All those criteria it wants in order to not even >>by default give the opponent a 'save game' command after the game, >>DESPITE THAT THIS IS THE PROTOCOL! >> >>Now people can legally complain that their protocol looks like Chrilly/Stefans >>protocol, but that it is not the same, and that the only differences >>are that by default chessbase ships some extra commands in order to >>recognize whether on the other side is also a chessbase program and that >>the other thing is to by default leave the 'save game' for the opponent >>is unmarked. >> >>all legal crap. JUST GIVE THE SAVE GAME COMMAND by default. >> >>That chessbase wants their own main product to win the auto232 matches >>somehow by shipping commands to other chessbase interfaces to get certain >>things done, that is completely their own responsibility and decision. >>Quite logical decision actually. I would want Fritz to win too if it was >>my main product. I'm not here to speak for how chessbase must run their >>company. That is their own business. >> >>But i'm here for those who want a fair match between non-chessbase products >>and a chessbase product, as well as chesspartner-tiger, >>which in future also is going to lose from Fritz as i understood. >> >>I understand that programs not learning are greatly influenced by >>this default unmark trick. >> >>You can produce your own PGNs and only those can get interpreted, whereas >>opponent is NOT allowed to show as slave the pgn, except if that >>programmer works around this. >> >>Much easier as everyone doing a hell of a lot of effort is simply to >>give everyone that 'save game' command.
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.