Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 16:49:34 04/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 01, 1998 at 16:32:15, Scott Carmichael wrote:
> No one to date has been able to post any proof that Fritz 5 achieved
>it's result unfairly. Many have whined and made inferrences, but no one
>has ben able to give solid evidence so far. Why is that ???
I can tell you exactly why what happens.
In the moment we are all complete busy in playing OWN data.
We have to do, and we have to do it ONLY, because OUR data is completely
different in result and playing style than the ssdf-results.
Whatever this autoplayer does, it produces different results.
If we would have time enough to also replay ssdf-games , we would of
course try it. I don't spent my time in showing YOU or convincing YOU.
I see no sense in trying to convince other people.
> Yes, the program used a different exe. file because of the addition
>of the autoplayer. Yes, it was allowed to use extra RAM as required by
>that autoplayer.
You really don't see the problem:
When Hiarcs won the championship in munich 1993, it was world-champion
!, the ssdf-guys were not able to test it, although Mark sent free-units
to sweden, they were unable to test hiarcs for a year or so. WHen they
tested it, they were unable to test it on the same hardware they gave
other TOP programs.
SINCE they test hiarcs on equal machines, hiarcs is on of the top
programs.
On the other hand the ssdf-guys are suddenly able to test Fritz5 (a
program that ranked only 16th at the paris-championship, also on optimal
hardware and almost whole chessbase team in paris [Feist, Morsch,
Friedel] !!) with OPTIMAL hardware, and a software that is not
publically available. The chess-base team can prepare the opening book
against their commercial opponents, and vice versa the commercial
opponents of fritz have no access to this strange autoplayer.
Also it is not sure if the behaviour of the autoplayer stops some
programs learning feature.
These are the 2 poles of HANDLING computerchess - testing.
From my point of view this whole contradiction makes the ssdf-list into
a senseless not anymore working instrument.
They always claimed to do it for fun. I don't believe them anymore. I
have the feeling that one main energy was builded by thinking that the
ssdf-list is a kind of official elo-measuring-system. If a system
handles participants this kind of DIFFERENT and this without any reason
(do they hate Hiarcs ? Do they love Fritz ? No - but they handle both
programs different) it has lost all trust that it wants to measure
anything. In fact it wants to establish a kind of scientifical ritual. I
doubt that this experiment has to do with science.
Fritz5 handling has destroyed all credibility !
I can only wish that all programmers boycott or - do now send "SPECIAL"
versions to the ssdf-list.
If one side is getting special environment, the other participants
should take their consequences out of it.
If you don't see the gap in the way they tested hiarcs and they test
fritz now, I cannot help you. And - as I said - i will not waste my time
trying to convince people.
>Yes, it used a powerbook. None of this indicates that the program is any
>different than what you can purchase.
Pah ! How can you find out ? You can only replay the lines it plays. You
cannot find out about the lines it is not playing ! How do you know that
it is NOT playing lines, you book would play active ?
How can you ever proof this ????
I don't see a way to do this .
>The only item not available to the
>public is the autoplayer, and you can bet your but that if Chessbase can
>sell it for a profit it wil be on the market. They are a business, after
>all.
Pah. You don't get the point. The reason they don't sell their
autoplayer is not making money. They would lose the first rank and 100
ELO if they would sell fritz with a win-autoplayer. And do you know why
? I do so.
> Look at the recent selective search rating. Fritz 5 sits atop it at
>2605, with the nearest competitor at 2585. Are people also accusing Eric
>Hallsworth of cheating ?
Oh man. You cannot read ! Eric uses the ssdf-list results too.
> No, only SSDF and Chessbase. I personally don't
>know if anything incorrect was allowed to occur, or if a special program
>was used to gain the origanl SSDF rating, but I do know that no one has
>seen any evidence to confirm the accusations.
If you don't know ("I personally don't
>know if anything incorrect was allowed to occur, or if a special program
>was used to gain the origanl SSDF rating") something, you cannot
claim anything. Against or for Fritz5.
You only want to do so, as if these 1st rank is legal. It isn't.
>There has been a lot of
>heresay and speculation, but no proof.
There was no proof that Einstein was right.
It took some time to create the experiments.
Later they were able to proof almost anything despite the gravitational
waves.
Give us the time to produce enough evidence.
> Not having evidence to prove these allegations, I must continue to
>place my trust in people like Eric and Enrique.
Pah -
I do trust Enrique and Eric too. Why should I not trust them ?
You are playing games my friend.
I am not against Eric and nobody is against Enrique. Your idea to
outplay one against another is mean.
And has nothing to do with the discussion about Fritz5.
I cannot reproduce their data. That is the problem. And the explanation
is:
they (or at least Enrique) have the autoplayer and we have the
commercial fritz5.
This produces different results. At least on my home.
>Will everyone make the
>same allegations if Ed releases a new version of Rebel that achieves
>2650, or if HIARCS 7 plays at GM strength ?
Pah ! Other programs do not need to cheat with these unfair methods !
I don't think you can relate these teams with each other.
Mark and Ed are honorable people. They have implemented the auto232 code
without any problems. Hiarcs was the victim of preparation in paderborn
1995.
Jeroen generates his opening books out of human theory...
You mix people together for whatever reasons. You cannot relate
Hiarcs/Rebel with the chessBase team.
They use completely different methods.
The later claimed ALWAYS that fritz is the strongest whatever monster.
They said this about fritz1 and it was not true.
They said it about fritz2 and it was not true.
They said it about fritz3 and it was not true.
And about fritz4 and it was not true.
Now - after they found a way to manipulate the ssdf-list, they claim
their new victory and strongest whatsoever, and again you believe this
is true.
Follow them. You will get what you deserve.
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.