Author: Dirk Frickenschmidt
Date: 18:24:34 04/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 1998 at 18:36:09, Thorsten Czub wrote: Hi Thorsten, >> >>On April 13, 1998 at 15:22:38, Thorsten Czub wrote: ...[snipped most] [Unsere Gespraeche werden sonst zu lang :-) ] >It's over Dirk. >Future versions of other chess-software will not further support the >auto232-device. It's over. >All the others do only react. ChessBase is the cause. >A great service to the customers, from my point of view :-)) Nothing is eaten as hot as it is cooked ;-) I still hope for other solutions against outbooking... ... I had written: >>Now soon as you show me some real reason for coming to other conclusions >>- and not just by bad feeling or raising suspicion without *any* proof, >>without *any* observation about published SSDF-games which anybody can >>easily replay - we can talk about it. And I will say: "you were right". >>If you were right. >>No problem. and you answered >I am not interested in this device. I am not interested in the games. I >am not interested in their result. >I believe in my own results. >The whole debate is not about RIGHT or WRONG. You miss something. In fact I thought it is about the integrity of the test games compared to other test games. >The >point is that Fritz5 got a special condition for testing, other programs >never had. You and I know other programs had their "special conditions" as well (Dos-version of Genius, programs like Hiarcs tested much later than others in former years, choice of opponents for various programs: lot's of little differences. I had written >>You know me well. I regard arguing without substantial observations as >>poor arguing. And I know you well enough to be shure you can do better >>and argue based on concrete observations, too. and you answered >Look Dirk. I don't comment you second sentence. >I cannot subscribe to your point of view. >I don't need "substantial observations" to talk about a topic. This sounds quite strange to me. I am used to solid reasoning if I want to find out about something. (Not if I look at the beauty of a rose.) >I have heard you are a priest. I wonder how you can TALK about your >believe. First of all by not confusing belief and chess :-) I believe when it's about believing. And I look for evidence when it's about evidence. >I am sure the people in your parish would be astonished about your >comments here. Why? >I do believe in things that don't exist, like Ideas, >believes. I believe in feelings you cannot prove, and in things you have >no 24 months warranty like friendship or love. Well, all this like most people, and believers of any kind, including me... So what? >All these things cannot be explained with newton-mechanics like your >statements define. Sorry. But chess doesn't even need much of Newton mechanics. Any stone or tree is more complex than chess is. Chess is based on pure facts within a small set of artificial game rules. Testing games or positions has *nothing* to do with belief at all. With guessing sometimes, when you are lacking facts. But not with believing... Just interpreting facts as close as possible to these facts. If you want to discuss about philosophical issues we can simply leave chess out. It's just a nice little game. We can discuss about fundamental concepts of reality by email. I have heard about it and spent one or two thoughts on the issue. ;-) It's shurely interesting for theology or scientific history. But how for chess? I had written >>The SSDF began upgrading to 64MB. They not only use these machines for >>Fritz5. So why should this be a "special hardware platform"?. and you answered >We will see Dirk. I had no possibility to prove on which hardware they >played with which software and WHY. You think they tell us nonsense about their equipment and testing conditions?? >>I am in favour of uniform platforms anywhere: in the SSDF as well as in >>world championships. As a user I like to see what these programs do on a >>P200MMX (or perhaps a Pentuium II-300 next year) with hardware I as a >>user have myself (32Mb recently, now 64Mb - and not for the sake of >>Fritz5! :-) ) ... >>>a NON open version, >> >>Wrong again: if Chessbase did not lie. On their website they say: >> >>"The Fritz engine that played in Sweden and in the Selective Search >>tests is exactly the same as the one you get in the Fritz5 box. >>There is >>no "secret formula-1 Fritz" which we are holding back from our customers >>(why on earth would we ship an inferior version?). All games played in >>Sweden can easily be reproduced using a standard, off-the-shelf Fritz5." > >The Fritz5 I have cannot autoplay. All commercial versions cannot >autoplay. >I would say therefore the version sent to the ssdf-guys is a special >version. > >I don't believe anybody hold back a special chess-engine. The junior >engine is IMO a special version producing good results against Rebel, >Genius and Hiarcs6. > >>The *only* acceptable reason I can see for claiming the opposite of >>their official statement is in my eyes *proving* the opposite or at >>least showing *some* sort of evidence - or shutting up... > >You have a different value system concerning FREE speech. >I can talk about anything. Also about non proven things. >Maybe I should be a priest ?! Or maybe not. When I see how you think >about NON proven things, I better don't follow you... :-) See above. Perhaps we both better keep matters of belief and chess apart, This could help both areas, don't you think? ;-) ... >>So what do you regard as "non-open" with their book? >> > >The games they don't play are the NON-open part. >The games they play are the same I have in my powerbooks. >But who proves the games Fritz does not play because it has learned >before not to play the lines ? MY fritz plays these losing lines and I >cannot prove why the ssdf-machine is NOT playing them. Still believing they did something very special? >I know you will not understand this complicate point, or will you ? It is less complicated than full of suspicion. Suspicion is ok with me if I see reasons for being suspicious. Not if I don't see them. With such a big book I would not expect you get exactly the same games and variations as they did. So what? >>>etc. etc. >> >>What do you mean by "etc. etc."? > >et cetera, et cetera Dirk. I thought this is a common short form. >Maybe I am wrong. I am not very educated. You are the Doc. Now come on and leave this kind of kidding... I was just tired of seeing even more suspicion in etceteras and asked myself what they might contain besides pure suspicion... > >>Do they use a secret stealth device to make Fritz5 unseen to the enemy >>and thus confuse opposite programs? >>Or perhaps Fritz5 is reading the opposite computer's e-mail with his >>"special device" because he would be bored by just playing chess >>otherwise? :-))) > >I guess THIS is the main weapon Dirk. > > >>... [more snipped] > >Gefickt eingeschaedelt !! > > >>>If they refuse to be fair or refuse to compete with publically available >>>stuff, they refuse to compete. >> >>If someone calls a program "not publically available" of which >>*anything* ssems to be available in public (engine-version, playing >>conditions as I can easiliy reproduce them, RAM size like on more and >>more computers, powerbook like I have it myself) - with the one exeption >>of an auto232-device which they don't like to be misused for modern >>methods of book-cooking, > >With the one exception. >In the end you got it Dirk. Brilliant. I still simply find it misleading to call a program "not available in public" if it *is* the available program doing what your and my Fritz5 does - just without the autoplayer added. Calling it a different program makes people think there were (perhaps many more) differences. For this reason I find it a bit demagogic, even if you can claim that Fritz5 with autoplayer is not the same as Fritz5 without autoplayer. ... (didn't understand your joke about Constantine) >Also to give Rolf some points he >can attack. Maybe this puts the focus from Bob to my unimportant person >so that Bob can continue to post chess-related stuff and not Tueschen >related stuff. ??? Let's just leave Rolf out, please... ;-) > >>Last word: I am really open to any kind of evidence and will immidiately > >You are open to evidence ? Wow ! >This looks very "tolerant" and wise. How did you came to such a >difficult and political correct statement. Own thinking or with help of >your kids ? You are right: my kids often help me. :-) They are doing basically the same when we argue: they want reasons and evidence and examples. And before you ask me: yes, we do other things than arguing about evidence as well. *Lots* of other things... :-) >Whatever it was Dirk, it was a very intelligent statement. I >cannot top it. >You are open to evidence , and you will immidiately consider !! >Ok - I will remember this. >Will write it in my diary under: famous statements from experts. > Instead of being angry about my request you could consider pointing to the evidence as soon as you see it or hear of it. Of course this is simple. That's perhaps why it could be fine for both you and me... ;-) ... [Snipped some sarcasms from both of us] Kind regards from Dirk
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.