Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:14:15 03/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2001 at 00:06:53, Ed Schröder wrote: Let's try again Ed. If you design a window with a checkbox which by default is unmarked mentionning in a very very small font "kill me if this checkbox is unchecked". Then majority of users will click Ok and risk getting killed a second later. Actually they take the risk without wanting. People always just click 'ok'. They don't read what is on the screen. Only a small group of hackers like you and me and some other CCC readers are reading the screen very carefully. >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.