Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:47:57 04/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 1998 at 15:12:46, Ed Schröder wrote: >>The autoplayer is just a part of your program that implements an >>interface, the auto232 protocol. It's your own code. There's no such >>thing as an autoplayer that plays a game between two programs and is >>independent of them. > >>Much of the debate over this is because this point is misunderstood. > >>Amir > > >Because of all the excitement about the Fritz autoplayer I did the >following experiment last week. When being in permanent brain I sent >rubbish to the opponent. I used Hiarcs6 and Genius5 as an example. > >Both Hiarcs and Genius crashed. >Two points for Rebel ??? > Neither the SSDF nor anyone else that I know counted a game that was not completed because of a crash. In any case, if the opponents of a certain program are in the habit of crashing, the testers will be aware of that. >Recognize and cheat the opponent even more.... >---------------------------------------------- > >Didn't succeed yet because I can't find the auto232 manual anymore but >I think this is all possible......... Now pay attention............ > >How to cook Rebel and other chess programs.... > >- Being in permanent brain, after 5 seconds send ALT_M (is force move) >to the TILL THEN unknown opponent. >- Do that 3-5 times in a row. >- If you immediately get back a move: > >a) you *KNOW* your opponent is Rebel (ALT_M is proven). If the ALT_M >trick fails try the "force move" trick for Genius, CSTAL, Mchess, >Hiarcs etc. by sending their specific force move commands. > >b) you forced Rebel 3-5 moves on 5 seconds level which is a clear cheat. > >Do such tricks ONLY at 04:00 (GET_TIME) when everybody is sleeping and >nobody will ever notice the cheat. > I've been in contact with Thoralf Karlsson about this. He asked me some questions about autoplayers: 1. Can an autoplayer affect the style or level of the opponent ? 2. Can it affect the learning function or thinking on the opponent time of the opponent ? 3. What else can an autoplayer do that will affect the result ? I answered: 1. No way. An autoplayer can only do something that is in the command-set of the opponent's autoplayer, and this does not include changing levels, styles, memory sizes, thinking times, or anything of this sort. 2. No, for the same reason as 1, but with qualifications below. 3. I thought about this, and gave him a list of 6 methods. Your complaint is no. 4 in my list. Here it is: - Lie about the result, or "resign" for the opponent. - Lie about the clock. The programs count time for themselves, and the opponent cannot enforce a correct clock. - Pretend to hang in a bad position so that the game will be timed out and ignored. - Send "play-now" to the opponent to force the move, making it play faster, and perhaps inviting a blunder. I told Thoralf several programs disregard this command. Your post confirms this. So it's only Rebel ? Actually Junior 4.0 would also honor this command. - Don't send "Save-game" (this is up to the master in the auto232 protocol). This should not have any direct effect, but as you say, in Rebel it will disable learning of the current game. - Send "Take-back" followed "Move-now", making the opponent recalculate the move. If the opponent originally was thinking on the opponent's time, on the second time it doesn't have this advantage. The first three of these are not really connected to the autoplayer, they could be done by any program in any game with automatic testing. The last three are autoplayer tricks. I find them a bit far-fetched as intentional behavior. Methods 4 & 5 only seem to work against Rebel. To make any difference, the methods should be used on a large scale. The problem with such tricks, if anyone is stupid enough to try them, is that you get caught. If the testers somehow fail to see that this, the autoplayer is in the hands of the SSDF (and Enrique, and others), and they, if they choose to, can watch it in action and expose it. All we need to know from the SSDF is that they have not seen this kind of behavior. If you want, we can ask them to watch a match for several hours and report if they saw anything. As I said, if anyone is stupid enough to do such things, he has supplied a piece of evidence that will repeat its crime in court in front of the jury. You posted several times that you demand to decide yourself on this issue. I don't think you have this right. We have the respected authority of the SSDF, and other testers, to give us an answer on this. If every result the SSDF posts for Rebel must have your approval, then I for one would stop considering them objective and start disregarding those results. >Amir, do we need a new auto232? > What we have now is workable. I posted before that we need to define the auto232 protocol by consensus, and I invited Dr. Donninger to submit the original draft. I would, for example, omit Take-back which is not needed, specify that move-now can only be received as the first or the last command of a game, and so on. I very much want to see "resign" and "draw-offer" messages added to eliminate this primitive timeout, and I want to add identification of the opponent to the protocol, since in high-level chess you know who you are playing against. I suggested to Thoralf that they adopt these "transparency" practices: - Publish all games. - Allow programmers to produce log files, that will be kept by the SSDF as a matter of record, and to make these logs available to the programmer if a dispute arises, or on a periodical basis. Besides, who needs auto232 or the SSDF ? We already have a new list on Ossie Weiner's web site. It's 100% pure and above suspicion. An Ossie Weiner program tops the list, Fritz is demoted by a 100 points or so by some procedure that was not specified. They even have Junior there, though without a version number, and with a rating probably extrapolated based on guesswork and set to be suitably below in-house programs. Who needs auto232 ? Who needs games at all ? They seem to hold you in high regard, Ed, so surely you will not withdraw from *that* list. Thorsten, I don't remember if they list CSTal, but if you ask them they surely will. No need to send a program. If they like you, they will find a high rating for you, but don't expect to be no. 1. More than a new auto232, we need to have our good sense back. The only thing I understood from this debate is that no one will trust anyone else, and many are willing to say and do anything to discredit the opposition. Enough was said already was said about Ossie Weiner's statements, I find it discouraging that people like you or Thorsten decided to join in, when you should have better sense. Despite all your disclaimers, it's hard to distinguish between what you are saying. If anyone reading this newsgroup concludes that Ossie Weiner and Ed Schroder are engaged in a vicious attack on the SSDF, you have only yourself to blame. Amir
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.