Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 21:06:53 03/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2001 at 21:39:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. > >Thanks, that's what i wanted to hear! > >>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. Hi Vincent, >People WANT it saved twice, No. Not the majority. Ask the SSDF if they use the "save opponent game" box. I am pretty sure they do not do that. You are a programmer Vincent not a consumer and therefore you have other wishes and demands. >because of interpretation problem. >If you are the only one who is allowed to save it, and we know >for example Rebel-DOS autoplayer arbitrated based upon +5 things, >then confusion can happen about what the result it. All described in the manual. Secondly you can turn it off in case you dislike it. The system is there because I am not interested in double games, clearly won/lost positions, clear draw positions that are continued for 60-100 needless moves. The system is responsible that it will speed-up auto232 matches with 200-300%. If you dislike it, turn it off. >The result shown by the auto232 players is usually not the objective >results. If however both sides agree that a match ended in a certain >score, then there are little things that need to get checked. You will have to go through all the games manually anyway as in no autoplayer platform you can fully rely on the match score given by the computer. >A double saving of the games is therefore a cool thing! For a programmer yes :) I think that most auto232 lovers do not use the option much. >>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. > >I'm concerned in fair competition. I know! And so do I. >>So I think you are in the minority here, buy hey the option is there >>and that is the main important thing. > >I think i'm in the majority Ed. Fair competition. Just letting one side >save the games is asking for unfair competition. Interpretation of the >facts rather. I don't think it is fair to say that. The option is there, and before you start using software better have a good look what the software is offering you and don't label something as unfair competition because you have not watched the options of the autoplayer software carefully. The option you were looking for is right before your eyes on the (auto232) screen. >apart from that, the one who was hit hardest in past by not saving >games was... ...rebel. You have worked yourself with the provided NONAME driver of the auto232 package. You should be an expert concerning its quirks. >Weird that Lex applied the same thing which i found so unfair that it >happened to you! Sure, life is one big conspiracy :) Ed >>>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 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.