Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Proposal: New testing methods for SSDF (1)

Author: Thorsten Czub

Date: 12:22:38 04/13/98

Go up one level in this thread


>I had the opportunity to use the chessbase autoplayer and observe the
>results. I noticed no special effect of it at all and have come to the
>conclusion that it works just like any well known auto232 device except
>for the nice feature that it switches between white and black games (so
>you don't have to play a whole series with one colour before using the
>other).

If e.g. Rebel is not able to save it's games, it is maybe also not able
to save its learning stuff.
The auto232 interface was never doing these strange things.
If it effects the opposite program in any way, it cannot be accepted.

> Until now I have never seen any effect that makes be think of
>something manipulative in it. And, frankly, I am convinced that someone
>like Matthias Wuellenweber would never try to use such a technical
>device as a kind of cheating device even if that would be technically
>possible (I still have not yet heard any plausible argument concerning
>this possibility).

The question is not if they manipulate.
The point is that the auoplayer is not an open device.
You can talk about if and what and all kind of stuff. But the main
problem is: here an exception was made to give ONE participant a special
device, a special hardware platform, a NON open version, non open book,
etc. etc.

This is the main problem.
It is not about if Matthias is a nice guy or not, it is about:
this is a not allowed advantage of ONE program above the others.

>The main problem are the more and more absurd "book wars" of which you
>have been a victim yourself at times.
>
>Although I don't like the Chessbase reaction as a user, I must admit I
>understand it from Chessbase's view: they simply want to avoid the new
>kind of killing book (I call it like that no matter what others think of
>it) where pre-played autoplayer games become part of a new book which
>then plays these wins as "openings" against the chosen targets in the
>SSDF list.

If they do not want book wars, they do not want to compete !
Making only THEIR program hidden and NON-OPEN = NON PUBLIC, they have a
special advantage.

The only reaction toward this is:
not allow this program to play against others OR
not allow the other programs to play against Fritz5.

If Bruce believes that it is a special advantage of Peter not to run
with his PC arround and to sit on ONE chair playing the blitz
tournament, than he claims: I protest against Peter having this special
advantage !
If now Fritz gets this special advantage , it is in the same way unfair
as it was for Bruce and Amir that Peter was allowed to SIT on one chair
meanwhile all the others had to run and carry their machines.

You can try to produce fog about this point as much as you want.
Fritz got a special advantage and THIS is the reason the results are not
FAIR or have to be annullated.

>As far as I know this is the only reason why chessbase refuses to make
>their autoplayer available for everybody: it seems to be no secret
>cheating device, but a simple auto232 player preventing to be booked by
>others (not by you, as I know from your fair and attractive way of book
>programming).

If they refuse to be fair or refuse to compete with publically available
stuff, they refuse to compete.





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.