Author: Dirk Frickenschmidt
Date: 16:22:29 04/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Thorsten, I had written: >>instead of attacking, you could spend a thought on the question if you >>aren't rather in a position to admit that you have made a lot of false >>allegations and raised a lot of wrong suspicion concerning Fritz5, >>namely... and you answered: >Wrong ! I don't have to admit anything. >>a) the Fritz5 autoplayer: >>As Enrique and Ed have checked now, it is working just as correct as was >>my first impression and as I already told you. you wrote: >I don't know what "Enrique and Ed have checked". Then I am glad to inform you as good as I can. You can ask Enrique and Ed for details, and I hope they correct me if I say something wrong. As far as I understood Ed has written a special protocol version of the Rebel auto232 autoplayer and sent it to Enrique, who checked the protocols. As this programmer check then showed, the results were simply standard auto232 games without any special thing done by the Fritz5 autoplayer. I remember well all the dark allusions you made about this device. Perhaps you remember them as well. You simply could admit now that there are hardly any more grounds for such suspicion concerning the autoplayer. Clinging to the old allegations seems - from a technical perspective - irrational to me and - from a human point of view - hardly acceptable. Instead of accepting obviously clean results of other Fritz5 testers and *then* asking yourself why you got other results, you insist on closing your eyes in front of the reality you don't want to see and take only your own games for real. I would never do this the other way round. I regard your games as part of the eveidence and only ask myself why they might differ. Perhaps a reason will be found. But surely not by putting all kinds of suspicion on the side of the other testers who - even after checking - find no difference between the the cleanness of the Fritz5 autoplayer, the common auto232 device and manual (re)play. Time to wake up from dark phantasies, is it? >My own results show >that Fritz plays NOT that strong as whatever Enrique has. This may be a reason to put questions and try to find *reliable* answers concerning the phenomenon, but not to keep up beliefs in unproven conspiration theories. >I have other people confirming this. Since they are in no way related >with me and have OWN machines and interests, I believe in what I said. >Fritz is weaker than enriques or ssdf-results suggest. I also regard Fritz5 as a bit weaker than the SSDF list might suggest. (Perhaps due to double games in connection with strong learning function) But *not* *much* weaker, even if someone - as I use to do - does not count doubles and does not count games against opponents on *very* much slower hardware (MMX200 against P90 or weaker for example). >It is a special engine playing good against Rebel+hiarcs+genius. >But playing weak against amateur programs (that will not be tested in >ssdf :-))) So what??? Probably these amateur programs (are there more than Diep or what are you refering to?) have *neither* been tested by Frans Morsch or Chessbase *nor* by the SSDF. We have a *big* number of first class rated programs in the SSDF. Why shouldn't this be the empirical basis for any new rating of *any* new program. If CSTal would get a nice ranking in SSDF and i would find any amateur brute force killer against it, would this tell anything about a ranking which CSTal got just like any other program in the list? I cannot count this argument for serious at all: The SSDF list simply says how high one of its programs is rated in relation to other programs *on* *the* *list*. So either you prove the opposite. Then their rating was wrong. Or they are right with their rating. That simple it is. The SSDF per definition says *nothing* about programs not rated there. It also says nothing about how much it would confuse the ratings if Bobby Fisher or Deep Blue or so far unknown amateur programs were part of the list. The SSDF is no institute for eternal, abstract or absolute values of chess programs at all! It is just a current list of programs rated there. Not more. Not less. This banality simply excludes your argument from our discussion. It is *completely* *irrelevant* to the question debated, if the current SSDF Fritz5 rating is justified or not. >>b) the Fritz5 powerbook: >>neither you nor *anyone* has shown *any* evidence concerning *any* form >>of outbooking within this book. >Dirk. If you would have understood the idea Kaare Danielsen once >explained very clearly, and I have also mentioned here, that the problem >is not the games Fritz IS playing but the ones fritz is NOT playing - >you would see that I cannot show evidence about which games Fritz is NOT >playing since this is not possible. >I see which games fritz plays. These games are also in MY powerbook. But >why is fritz NOT PLAYING other games I have in my book and when I do >play them fritz loses, but not the ssdf-fritz. I think I understood Kare Danielsens argument well enough. ;-) I just don't agree on the way you use it for the Fritz5 powerbook: >How shall I show evidence for games the ssdf-fritz is NOT playing ???? >Instead of rethorics Dirk you should consider a minute about this... >maybe it helps. >Kaare said completely right: >Here are some comments to the current discussion: >"1. The fact that some programmers put long opening lines into the > library is only half the problem. The other half is that some > programmers test their programs against the top opponents, and > systematically REMOVE all opening lines where their program is losing > to one of the top opponents. > The effect of this can be even more dramatic than adding a few > killer-lines to the opening library, and there is no way to detect > it from looking at the opening library, because you do not know what > has been removed. This problem is not new, some programmers have used > autoplayers and removed openinglines systematically for more than 10 > years. ... [Some snipped only concerning his own broad random book] >I subscribe to this statement. I could subscribe to this if the Fritz5 powerbook were one of these highly specialized opening books we all know. But everyone who uses it will just get the opposite impression! It contains nearly all modern open theory. In contrast to other books I never noticed common lines missing or being altogether excluded. And this or special weighting would be indicators of what you imply. As long as such indicators are missing, what you imply is *very* improbable. And Chessbase states that the SSDF did *not* receive any special version of the powerbook. So I can only state that the effect you claim is highly improbable concerning the F5 powerbook. The only effect indicated is that of the intense learning feature. That's all. >>Your *much* too agressive anti-Fritz postings are more and more lacking >>any substance, and I regard your answer to Thoralf as unacceptable in >>tone and content. >And why ? >You can have as much ideas about my comments as you like Dirk. >I appreciate you thinking and having own ideas ! >Otherwise talking with you would be boring, wouldn't it ? It's not about having own ideas. It's about being suspicious and spreading in part malevolent phantasies. And it's about the way these are expressed towards other persons who deserve not a bit less respect than you would claim for yourself. >>If you want to critisize, you simply have to use the same rational >>arguments as everyone else has to use, >Very nice that you want to explain me WHAT i have to write and HOW. Yes, correct: my wish to you is that what you write is working with less allegations and suspicion. And that how you write does not treat anyone like you treat Thoralf. I am no mimosis. You can call me or others an a****le in anger. But I don't like your extreme black and white painting of people. Most good-willed people are as ambivalent as you and me are. No need to paint them completely in black or white. >Please accept that it is me deciding WHAT i write and HOW I am doing it >and NOT you ! Thanks. I do not at all reclaim deciding for you. Of course not. I said in anger what I would rather not see or hear from you. And what I regard as standards in human behaviour which should be respected. No iron rules or something. Just standards we should all in all respect in discussions. >> and you are *not* an exception to >>common rules and are *not* justified to just spread emotional nonsense >>as you did recently. >I do not spread - as you say - emotional nonsense. When somebody is >spreading NONSENSE, although not emotional, but very funny nonsense due >to the naive way, than it is Thoralfs comments you get each ssdf-list. I don't agree. You know from our talks that I do not share some of Thoralfs views. I once wrote him myself about disagreeing. But I don't see any reason to be ironical or angry about nearly anything he says, just because he might be a welcome enemy clichee, which perhaps I would need for my fights. This is instrumentalizing people for reasons of own feelings of agressiveness. This is unjustified projecting of own anger on others. Note: not if you are heated about him or others here and there. That happens. But: if you paint him or others and their arguments simply black and white continously without proper reason, this is no good. >I always criticized when people knew about results even before having >tested the programs. They knew hiarcs was weaker, so they never tried >hiarcs on a machine as fast. >Not MY critics is nonsense. Their comments were nonsense. I think their late testing of Hiarcs and then on slow machines was worth critisism. You were right about *that* matter, although perhaps already then to harsh in tone and content. What I see now from you is even more harsh, and what disturbs me most, from my point of view you find more and more joy with dwelling in clichees while having not much substance this time compared to the matter then. Where is our ability to laugh about ourselves as well? We once did, as I remember... You then used to make jokes about my talking of "pawn structures". And I made jokes about your disliking of Fritz2 and Fritz3. We played testgames and joked. Now everything suddenly seems to have become some serious kind of war. And suddenly you no longer say: 'well, I respect argument a or b, but I still don't like Fritz looking at c." Instead you debate like: I don't want to see a or b at all, although they are obvious parts of reality. I prefer my own c; it better fits what I like to think about the matter... >When they throw out the Schaetzle + Bsteh Turbokit because it is >NON-commercially available, but is always was available, they get MY >comments about their stupid alibi-comments. >When they make special exceptions to the Chessbase team, and even allow >them to use a secret autoplayer without having asked the other >programmers about this, they get my comments. This is all debatable. No problem. But it is *not* ok to raise the suspicion that they consciously have been cheating, or the SSDF testers have allowed cheating. *Nothing* of that proves to be true: - no auto232 cheating evidence, but rather evidence for normal autoplay - no active or passive outbooking eveidence, rather the opposite - no special endgame CDs but simply a part of the endgames on the normal Fritz5 CD (this allegation i saw somewhere is especially ridiculous, because already the SciSys board computers had their first pawn ending databases on ROM supplied with the program - quite a while, is it?) *All* of these kinds of allegations rather show to be malevolent nonsense. *Not* the principal questions. It is very legitimate to ask: - shouldn't *all* programs tested have the same hardware (eg 200MMX with 64Mb hash)? - shouldn't the autoplayer be available for everyone? - more of such questions >If you don't like the emotion in my comments, just don't read them. >I don't like to be polite when the circumstances do not fit to >politeness. As said above. I don't wait for extreme politeness. And I can live with a hard word or two. But some standards of fair communication and reasoning should still be visible here and there and in broad be respected... ... [snipped some personal remarks of both] >>Please return to polite and rational reasoning as soon as possible!! >I don't see a reason to do so. The scandal is not my behaviour but the >latest Computer Schach and Spiele and the very low level of cheap >boulevard-"journalism" atlatus-people like Liebert (a second Pfarrer >Hintze doing the dirty job for Kohl=Friedel?) are doing in the name of >computerchess. This is what I mean: I ask for fair comments on the autoplayer, the powerbooks and towards Thoralf Karlsson. And you answer with a load of putting all black and white stuff together which comes to your mind. Our topic has *nothing* to do with your aversion against Kohl and Hintze. I also don't have an abo of CSS. I seldom found much worth reading in it since years (when I only bought a single one from time to time). So I don't have the present one. And I am not too interested in getting it. And if I got it and found something I don't like I would say it straight away. But this was not and is not our topic. *If* you want to talk about it, please name what is wrong. Else I can only guess. >But - and I am sure - this will have consequences. We will no longer >accept this monopol doing what they want. You always wanted another (or your own) computer chess magazine. So what? Any relation to our topic? >We get rid of people manipulating and brainwash the people with lies and >weak "journalism" and this stands for Kohl / Friedel in ONE word. Again: what on earth do Mr Kohl or Mr Friedel have to do with this thread? Does anybody and anything have to serve as black picture well suited to mix all kinds of agressive feelings??? >Bluehende Landschaften and claims alike of: we don't censor authors or >we don't censor advertising is nice, but stays a lie. >CSS ows Ossi Weiner a public apology due to the very mean article: >A question of honor. I simply don't know "the very mean article". If it is that important, quote the most relevant parts of it here, so we all can see what it is about. >I am no friend of Ossi Weiner. >But this article is the most mean things I have ever read in this >magazin and I will not allow them (CSS AND CHESSBASE) to continue this >style and way IN PUBLIC. If they want advertising they shall sign it as >advertising. >But this way of "presenting" news is not allowed. >As I said: it's enough. Enough of ChessBase, enough of CSS, and enough >of stupid naive comments from ssdf-guys. All black and white and fine, is it??? >I don't know how long CSS exists. Maybe as long as Kohl is cancelor. Perhaps the magazine was secretly founded by Mr. Kohl? Perhaps Mr. Kohl, Mr. Hintze and Mr. Friedel are all members of a secret sect interested in politics as well as in computer chess? Who knows? ;-) >I am sure this time of these dinosaurs is over. They will die. >I am sure you will not understand or don't like my image. But >this is not important. ... >I will not accept you trying to defend a company (ChessBorg), Again these projections of fairy tale worlds of black and white good and bad. "Chessborg"! How bathetic! Notice: I don't defend a company. I defend common sense within an area which is my hobby. Nothing more, nothing less. >a magazine >and a way of presenting news that brainwashes the people for commercial >interests any longer. Make it on-topic by citing or leave it offtopic. >As I said - I am sure Ossi Weiner is not my best friend. I am fighting >against him misusing truth too. But this goes to far. >When pigs throw mud towards them, in the end the reader has to clean it >up. >I don't like their behaviour. But obviously you underestimate ChessBorg >if you believe that OSSI is the agressor alone. I find the expression Chessborg ridiculous. I don't think in such categories and rather smile about this kind of metaphors than take them serious. I rather try not to think in such all too simple patterns. I don't agree with Chessbase or Matthias Wuellenweber on all kinds of matters. We sometimes have heated little disputes. But we don't debate on the level of allegations and black and white painting. >The most aggression comes from a magazine writing nice articles full of >bullshit and calling it journalism when it is pure ADVERTISING campaign >for ChessBorg. >This is aggression. News and Advertising have to be differenciated. Agreed. Nevertheless there are standards for advertising as well. >If publisher and owner is the same, this does not work - as we have seen >the last 15 years. I hope we may get back some fun in computer chess the next 15 weeks. Else I would think of retiring completely from a strange hobby which seems to make all kinds of people bitter antagonists concerning anything they talk about. 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.