Author: Mark Young
Date: 17:56:08 06/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 1998 at 01:12:16, Komputer Korner wrote: >On June 04, 1998 at 21:29:07, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 04, 1998 at 05:12:20, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>>On June 03, 1998 at 19:56:40, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>>Ed Schroder has tried to get a gentleman's agreement to have all the >>>>>programmers provide their program's autoplay driver to the public. The >>>>>idea is that if one program has a secret autoplayer then others won't be >>>>>able to test against it while it will be able to test against theirs. >>>>>This is unfair. He probably won't succeed because having a bunch of >>>>>programmers agree on anything except the alpha beta algorithm is next >>>>>to impossible. >>>>>Komputer Korner >>> >>>>I would agree then that makes it unfair, or dumb for other companys to >>>>make their autoplayer public. If their is no agreement. So this does not >>>>make Fritz 5's rating unfair now? >>> >>>No. There are other reasons. >>> >>Is this a rehash of the old charges, or do you have some proof of some >>kind that is new? >> >> >> >>>>Just the other companys next >>>>generation programs, because they will not be able to autotest against >>>>the current number one program? >>> >>>They will go back and remove the autoplayer as well so that you with the >>>secret autoplayer have no advantage. >> >>This is the point that I have read before that I just don't understand. >>How does Fritz 5 get an advantage now. Are you saying that if Chess base >>would have made the their autoplayer public. Then the rating on ssdf >>would now be ok. When it has be shown by Ed and other that the >>autoplayer was clean. How does the fact that the autoplayer is public or >>not public change the rating of Fritz 5 now? What advantage could Fritz >>5 be getting? >> >> >> >> >>>Of course this is a step back to stone age to play manually. >> >>Is this what all the charges really stem from? That the other companys >>will have to test manually against Fritz 5? If they want to test their >>next programs against the current number one program on the ssdf ratings >>list. >> >>If there is no agreement to make all autoplayers public. How can anyone >>blame chess base, or any other company for wanting to protect their >>programs from unfair booking, and other things that a public autoplayer >>gives. >> >>I just can't help from feeling that if Fritz 5 was not number one on the >>ssdf list. That no one would care if fritz 5 had a public autoplayer or >>not. > >that is a very shortsighted view. in the long run with that attitude >there won't be any automated testing anymore. Without automated testing, >the progress of opening theory and the progress of the top programs >slows down. >-- >Komputer Korner ------------------------------ I agree that progress will slow down without automated testing, but what I object to is a smear campaign to try and bully future companies and programmers into seeing it our way. This hurts progress as much, if not more than no automated testing. If releasing a public autoplayer is best for chess programming as a whole, then we should work on getting some kind of agreement. The approach that is being taken now will only make it harder to get such an agreement. In the future this may cause more companies and programmers to stop releasing their autoplayers to the public. Because no one will have any credibility left to persuade the companies and programmers that the release of a public autoplayer is in everyone's best interest either with or without an agreement. No wonder chess programmers can not agree to anything, if this is the type of antics we so easily succumb to.
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.