Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 10:30:31 04/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 1998 at 19:22:29, Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote: >Hi Thorsten, >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. Right. I take my own games for real. And the paris games. I witnessed them too. And I have at least 5 other testers having the same idea about this topic. And they don't want to be named in public since they don't wanna discuss with people who know only 3 possibilities (wrong/right/can't say). I will do this for them. And I can tell you, Ossi Weiner is not part of the 5. Also I have not counted chris into the 5. So I wish you all a more nice editions of CSS. I am sure you deserve them. >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. Perhaps a reason will be found. Exactly. >Time to wake up from dark phantasies, is it? You can make your jokes about it. This does not change anything. Fritz plays horrible-. And you can be 22 people claiming the opposite. I do not believe in whatever you claim when my own results and those of the people I trust do not fit with your results. >>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. You do not differenciate. You mix things up to make fun out of it. There is no unproven conspiracy theory. The ssdf-guys have made an exception with fritz, chessBase uses a secret autoplayer-device that shall not fall into the enemies hands, and thoralfs comments about the whole topic show me that my comments were right. You don't have to make "CONSPIRACY THEORIES" out of it. Call it relationships. Call it support. Call it whatever. >>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) 8 points ? 10 ? What is A BIT ? >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). Your point of view. I call Fritz much weaker. And i do obviously not count double-games or games with strange machine-base. (p90 vs. p200). >>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. But these programs are NOT stronger than Fritz5's elo. And they win easily. They win because fritz is only good against Rebel/Hiarcs and Genius. It is NOT only diep i test against. CSTal is also within. And other programs. >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. Because the program did not start under fair conditions. >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? CStal is not in the list. And chris is right. Since the list does not reflect playing strength but stupdity of testing methods and OTHER THINGS, it makes no sense anymore to quote the list or send your programs to it. Fritz has made this very clear to all of us. Thanks. Pah - I said:; not only ONE amateur kills fritz. I have more than one. Almost any program that is was not tested before by chessBase makes it. >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 problem is that the cheating-chances are very high when you tune against the top-rating-list programs. ChessBase has done this. Matthias has emailed it himself that they tested month before sending the device to ssdf-list. He spoke about hundreds of games. This is enough comment from somebody who should know. You cann call Ossi an asshole if you want Dirk, but when he says something that is true, I will not close my eyes only because it comes from ossi. >The SSDF per definition says *nothing* about programs not rated there. They are even more stupid. They do not test programs they believe the programs are stupid. They know in forward what to test. Also their testing concentrates on the best programs. How often do I have to explain you or the public about this incest topic until you understand it ? >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. If you believe this, you are either lying or stupid Dirk. The list is MORE than only a list. Programmers "fuck themselves" ( as a programmer once told me) for getting the first rank . They do it with all possibilities and magazins publish the list to misuse the data in it. The less educated the reader is, the more the importance of the numbers is believed. The more interested the magazine is in the list, the more it will stress the importance of the list. All kinds of people with commercial interests quote the list. There have always these kind of lists. And there was always cheating in those lists. If you take lists about hi-fi-stuff or fotograph-euqipment, or computers. The system is always easy. I take a good name and misuse it for publishing a list with commercial products. In my youth it was DM-Test competing with TEST fro Stiftung-Warentest, in our days you have dozens of magazins publishing all kinds of lists. And the idea behind these list is always: the best products in the list will be bought. If you now come after 10 years computer chess experience (you have written a book about all this !) and want to tell me : A list is only a list. Not important. Than there is something foul Dirk. Sorry. >This banality simply excludes your argument from our discussion. The balaity is misused by people making business out of it. I am not making money out of computerchess. You don't make money out of it. But I can name many people making profit out of it, and I can also name you their story and where they lied and where they cheated. I have a good memory for those details. You can of course try to make your jokes about it. >It is *completely* *irrelevant* to the question debated, >if the current SSDF Fritz5 rating is justified or not. A list that has systemimmanent problems in the environment is bad enough. People misusing this list, even more shit. And people interretating irrelevant data, based on system immanent chaos, is much more shit. If they count doubles they make mistakes. If they allow exceptions of Fritz kind, they produce mistakes. If they do not allow other strong programs to compete in their list their ELOS are senseless since the numbers were generated out of incest participants tuning on each other in endless autoplayer-duells. The list suddenly is a farce. >I think I understood Kare Danielsens argument well enough. ;-) This is more than 20% of the readers of this club understand Dirk. >I just don't agree on the way you use it for the Fritz5 powerbook: ? I use it ? I use his comments ? He is right, isn't he ? >I could subscribe to this if the Fritz5 powerbook were one of these >highly >specialized opening books we all know. This is not important. A big book with big variety and a good learner and you will get games in match a and another guy will get other games in match b. And both use the same book. But both under completely different conditions. A uses many different unknown opponents. Changes machines and programs on different machines. B uses ONE machine for Fritz and only a top opponents. And : what will you get ? You will get different results although the book is the same. And a cannot prove b and vice versa. Since both do not understand why the other guy gets different opening. I have studied this behaviour with CSTal book in autoplayer sessions in britain, watching chris' 5 autoplayers run parallel. The cstal book is 520 MByte of all kind of data. not only grandmaster openings. Many many wide variations and you can get almost any result concerning environment and HOW you test. >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. I can replay the F5 games, but often my powerbook plays different move and I have to take back the move often to get the alternative. Why ? And how can I show or prove why the ssdf-fritz plays this move from opening and my version not ? >The only effect indicated is that of the intense learning feature. >That's all. >It's not about having own ideas. >It's about being suspicious and spreading in part malevolent phantasies. I am different opinion. I call it my opinion. And I cannot understand the term "malevolent phantasies". I am not suspicious. All I say is that i get different results. All you show me with your comments is that you don't like my point of view. I guess you will have to live with this... >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. I comment on words not on persons normally. I comment on what he says. I don't care much who somebody is. I do not claim anybody to have any respect towards me. I don't like these categories of power. In my world all people are equal and nobody gets a higher respect than other people. If he reacts THIS way on public demands by programmers, he is the one showing no respect at all. >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. Good to know. The same with me. I do not "treat" Thoralf. I comment on his posts. >You can call me or others an a****le in anger. But I don't like your >extreme black and white painting of people. Did I call him an asshole ? I don't think I did, or ? Again you claim black/white painting. In my world there is no need for black/white since people are not important but what they say or do is. You always claim that I have something against Fred or whoever. But I do not have something against THEM. I have something against what they do e.g... So : the black and white exists only in your mind. I do differenciate between people and what they do/say. I see you are not able to do so. You try to see anything black/white. Ich habe keinen Bock dir das zu erklaeren. Liess mal die Bibel, da steht genug Erklaerung zu diesem Thema drin. >Most good-willed people are as ambivalent as you and me are. >No need to paint them completely in black or white. I do not paint them anyway. You don't like that I comment their output. YOU therefore paint them or see them painted. I don't even look at the color of their bodies. I try to look on what somebody says. Therefore i do not need real-names or titles. >>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. Your standards are different than my standards. >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. I don't need Thoralf. I commented his output, not his size or his hair-color or his eye-color. I don't know if he is black, red, white or brown. I don't mind if he is catholoc or protestant. I don't care if he is german/dutch or american. I am not interested if he is a human beeing or a dog or an ape. I do refer to what he said. And this does say nothing towards what i feel about HIM IN PERSON. You don't understand this. I cannot help you to understand this. >This is instrumentalizing people for reasons of own feelings of >agressiveness. This is unjustified projecting of own anger on others. I have no anger. I comment and tell my opinion. My opinion seems to be different than yours. Ok- who counts. But why do you want me to shut up, only because I have different opinions? >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. As I said, you and Enrique have NO idea about what I am doing. All I can see from your both primitive categories you use is that both of you catgeorize in black/white stuff. I will not accept this , since I do not think in those categories. You claim that you see those categories in my writings. But this is not my problem. It is the image that appears in your head when you read my comments. I get rid of explaining people about logic and the fact that THEY project thier prejudices of logic into my writings. I get rid to explain it to Andreas or Moritz or Enrique or you. I do not think in those categories. Recognize this or stop posting the false allegations. My comments on Frederic and Dieter and CSS and ChessBase and, in this case, Thoralf, have nothing to do with the thing YOU call black/white thinking. YOUUUUUUU believe that i think this way. But you are wrong. As you cannot find out what I think , you should not try to call me black/white thinking. I don't criticize CSS for this reason. I have own experience. It makes absolutley no sense to discuss with you. You have a prejudice. You and Moritz and Enrique have the prejudice that I blind or have glasses that are black and white and all this shit and you have no idea what happens. You believe you have. But you haven't. Since it makes no sense anymore to talk with you all, because you only react with prejudice concerning how I work or how I think and why I think and why not, I will not answer here again. >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. As if this has been the first problem. It was ONE dirk. How can a tone develop when people are so stupid NOT TO TEST A WORLD CHAMPION PROGRAM FOR ONE YEAR JUST BECAUSE T H E Y B E L I E V E IT IS NOT STRONG. > 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. If people give comments on a formal public demand of 4 programmers, like Thoralf has done here (IN PUBLIC), he should better let somebody else comment or ask his mother to help him doing writings. >Where is our ability to laugh about ourselves as well? >We once did, as I remember... 16 years of CSS/kohl have damaged much. 16 years lies. Manipulation and profit-campaings to feed a group of 10 people. If people would know about guys like Stamer, Haack or Niggemann or or or and how they behave behind the scene, when "nobody" watches them, they would be completely give up computerchess. >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. Right. And this Tueschen guy under a different name refers to this article and has STILL not understood why Saitek Maestro D++ played Bxa3 and needs Bd6 before. This is from february 1992 ! Now we have 1998 and since is not capable of commenting on the content of the article and the chess-positions, he tries to start a dabate about formal-standards. I don't share HIS standards. And I don't share your standards Dirk. This has some advantages. >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." I said exactly this. That my results show that fritz is much weaker and Moritz and Enriques results showed that it is number one. And I said that I cannot reproduce their results. And therefore they want to shut up me ?? Pah - Continue like this. >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... You are wrong. Moritz had always this good results with fritz. And you also had always a faible for Fritz. Don't you think I have forgotten this ? This is in my calculation. I substract it from the ELO you estimate ! And than I say: Fritz is much weaker than the ssdf-elo suggest. And this is my sin ? >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. They confirmed exception and still react strange (as Thoralfs comments show). >*Nothing* of that proves to be true: >*All* of these kinds of allegations rather show to be malevolent >nonsense. I see you sometimes react also under your STANDARDS ! :-) >*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 Right. And we request these LEGITIMATE questions for how many years by now ? And how much was changed by them ? Nothing. And even worse, the naive comments they give as if they don't know about the problems... no . >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... I respect Thoralf. You cannot imagine how I would behave if I would not respect him in person. >>>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. There is no black/white stuff melted together. These are the people manipulating our live and our computerchess-live. They manipulate in word and in actions. The problem is that you seem to forget that these things belong to each other just because you don't read the magazine. Or don't work in germany. Or whatever. >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. I do connect the things that belong together. Which magazin did not print the open letter ? CSS. Which magazin is published by Frederic Friedel ? CSS. Who is the boss of ChessBase ? Who tries hard to make the best out of fritz ? Who makes profit out of nothing ? Who has a monopol ? >You always wanted another (or your own) computer chess magazine. >So what? Any relation to our topic? I am against monopols. >>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? Both brainwash people. Friedel: ChessBase products are the best Kohl: Bluehende Landschaften, keinem wird es schlechter gehen, aber vielen, vielen besser. They are both in charge for a turnarround of the society. The one for BRD, the other guy for the turnarround in the german computerchess scene. ChessBase + Fritz have to do with him. CSS wrote a mean article about Weiner without giving BOTH sides of the medal the chance to explain their point of view. This is the way monopols work. Behind the scene they cheat and do illegal deals. They inform in "objective" press statements and the result is: computerchess dies. >Does anybody and anything have to serve as black picture well suited to >mix all kinds of agressive feelings??? There is no black picture. >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. Not my interest to publish a mean article with lies. >All black and white and fine, is it??? I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you have wrong glasses on your eyes or your eyes are closed, therefore it is dark... I don't know. >>I don't know how long CSS exists. Maybe as long as Kohl is cancelor. > >Perhaps the magazine was secretly founded by Mr. Kohl? Could be. Both have the same IQ. >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? ;-) Looks like. What makes me suspicious is, Hintze is a pfarrer like you Dirk ! Maybe Rolf is right. He claimed something that all religious guys are somehow related behind the scene ! :-)) >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. If your statements are nonsense it doesn't matter why you post them. >Make it on-topic by citing or leave it offtopic. I would advise all of you to buy chessbase products. To read CSS and to follow their advises. They are right. They know it. They are Gods. Follow them. They have influence but they will not misuse it. They only want to help their friends and to share the same profit, ahem, hobby you do. They are not previledged. No - they are really poor people paying more fee you do. Love them. Believe them. And buy their products. Read their articles about computerchess and join it. >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. It is not from me. I quote it. I have forgotten who created it. Maybe Moritz or somebody on rgcc. ChessBorg is ok, since it exactly hits the point. >I rather try not to think in such all too simple patterns. Of course not. How could you. >I don't agree with Chessbase or Matthias Wuellenweber on all kinds of >matters. We sometimes have heated little disputes. Yes. And over all you have better results with fritz. How easy for you. >But we don't debate on the level of allegations and black and white >painting. Of course not. He sees white. You see white. You cannot differenciate anything in between. And any other opinion that is not white is per definition black ! >Agreed. >Nevertheless there are standards for advertising as well. Aha ! Standards of advertising. How many law-suites do your think they have had during their history if they follow these standards accurate ? I can only laugh about such a statement. There are standards. Right. But they do not follow them. Otherwise - why would they law-suit the whole time ?? Because they are pacifists ? >>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 I have much fun, you forgot it ? Fritz loses at my home since i don't let it run against hiarcs or rebel or genius (what CHessBase tested out months before paris !).
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.