Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 07:23:50 08/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2001 at 15:34:34, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On August 23, 2001 at 15:19:11, Peter Berger wrote: > >>In my opinion your post is a very ugly one, Gian-Carlo. >> >>You get an _anonymous_ message in your mailbox ! > >I know who the author was. I said anonymous here because >I did not want to reveal the name of the originator. > >I know that person well and I trust him to be honest >in this matter. > >>You post it here without translating and post it under the misleading title: >> >>Re: Gromitchess bookcheating (for Vincent DIEPEVEEN) > >Correct. It was meant for Vincent. Vincent can understand it. >It was not (necessarily) meant for other people. Thats why >I didn't translate. > >>If you wanted to contact Vincent Diepevenn , why didn't you use email ? > >I wanted to reach him ASAP, and this is the best way to do >it. This issue is important IMHO. > >>What has this to do with GROMIT ??? >> >>The anonymous claim was about Goliath in Leiden . > >Correct. The suspected means of cheating are identical. >I'm personally also curious if the Goliath team used >the same 'tactics' in this event. Perhaps Vincent can >enlighten us about that later. > >>We know nothing about the fact if Vincent's protest was right. So why make this >>up here ? > >Did I claim _anywhere_ that Gromit is bookcheating in this >tournament? The subject is about Vincent's accusation of >Gromit. > >I'm at home now, and not in Maastricht. I have no idea whether >they are bookcheating or not. However, if there is a claim they >do I want it investigated and cleared up. > >>It's even funnier if you remember yesterday's posts btw where Diep thanked >>Carlos Pesce for his marvellous opening book _he_ used for his program. > >Fritz uses the Kure book too. No problem with that. Big difference >is that both Fritz and Diep admit it, and that Pesce is an amateur >who is not paid for his work on Diep's book. > >>The real problem is the misuse of the Amateur title IMHO. > >Yes! > >>Well, obviously not - else Gromit couldn't be told amateur ( neither Diep btw ) >>. > >I agree. Both programs should be marked as professional. > >>It is accepted that Alex Kure makes the Chessbase books and Jeroen Noomen the >>Rebel books regardless of engine. > >Yes. That is wellknown and they do not try to hide it. > >>They simply should call everyone that sells his program professional IMHO. > >Yes. > >>When it is about Gromit : why is there a shadow over their success ? There only >>was a claim by Vincent that he can't imagine them having such a good book >>without cheating - come on ! And an anonymous email about Goliath that you >>posted - thank you very much . > >We will see what comes of the Gromit case. Not much I guess, but >it still warrants investigation. As for Goliath, I really wonder >what they did in this tournament. If they _lied_ about their books >again, then, IMHO, their blitz title has no moral value. > >-- >GCP Let me try to give me my view on opening books that aren't written by chess programmers themselves. Problem description: An opening book adds xx elo points to a chess engine. An opening book can be written by the chess programmer or not. IMO the the ICCA should demand not only the name of the author of the chess engine but also the author of the opening book. Author of the chess engine and the opening book should be tied into one team as the opening book is an essential part of program good for xx elo points. Such a rule could end any form of book incest and avoid discussions like this. Ed
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.