Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 14:13:38 08/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2002 at 16:48:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On August 30, 2002 at 16:38:39, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On August 30, 2002 at 16:24:41, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On August 28, 2002 at 12:54:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 28, 2002 at 12:13:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 28, 2002 at 11:01:52, Jayakumar Ramanathan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>the truth is that all you will find out is a very primitif information >>>>>about it in programs like gnuchess and crafty which are open source. >>>>> >>>>>the real good evaluations are top secret, both from most amateurs as well >>>>>as from commercials. so please what you see in these programs gives >>>>>a good idea how it works. it doesn't represent quantity or quality of >>>>>the real ones. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>The inverse is also true. Just because you _can't_ see it doesn't mean >>>>that the quantity/quality is any better than what you _can_ see... >>> >>>In military sciences as in highly sensitive State sciences the exact details are >>>never published. Please do elaborate how secrecies entered into CC! What is the >>>tradition? >> >>You see, there's this thing called a competition. It's a contest. Even >>sometimes their are egos involved. Sometimes people like to keep winning, so >>they don't tell everyone how they do it. >> >>Then there's some people who want to make merchandise of their program. In >>order to sell the most copies, they don't tell anyone their winning secrets so >>as to keep others from duplicating and diluting their profits. >> >>Hope that helps. > >_No_, this doesn't help at all. Matthew, I didn't ask for these secrets out of >competition, you know. I was asking about the secrecies about the identity of >the machine's processes and the displayed reality. Know what I mean? I mean in >sports we have the control against doping. We are interested in the identity of >the competitive performance. We don't just take the apparent for the real >reality. Know what I mean? As it seems in CC a great part of competition is >about the fake of reality? Here I wanted to have some further details from the >past. As to your point of business, such a split reality is even more annoying, >don't you think so? I mean, we chessplayers want to know what the real eval is >for the particular position. > >Rolf Tueschen My apologies for the mis-understanding. As for your clarified question, I was not aware of the wide-spread disinformation or "fake of reality" in CC competitions. A few frauds have been exposed in the past, but for the most part, it does not seem to be a problem. It's pretty hard to pull off a real "Turq" masquerade in a WCCC or other important event. It's less hard to pass off a clone program as an original work. But, I don't get the impression that it's a huge problem. On the Internet, there are problems, but most everyone knows who the good guys are and if some annonymous interloper "program" starts winning everything, people get suspicious. But that's just life in a free society. Just about any engine you want to download or purchase gives quite good information on what the engine is doing. Although, to the un-initiated, it looks like prefect gibberish. It sounds like you are suggesting some "doping controls" or other measures as safeguards against "faking", and to satisfy the skeptical mind that everthing is scientifically in order. There probably are some things that could be done, but that might take much of the fun out of it. After all, it's only a game, and a pretty esoteric corner of it at that. It's not a giant scientific endeavor, just an interesting hobby to squander away the precious few hours of your life on. Regards, Matt > > >> >> >>> Or did it start with DEEP BLUE? And then, how do you feel when you >>>one time have to defend the factual reality of the invisible (matches of DB2 >>>against commercial progs) and then here you remind us of the existence of the >>>claimed real in opposition to the invisible. Do you see any need to reform >>>"classical" CC? >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>What is the best place to read about how chess evaluation functions are >>>>>>constructed? I am not an expert in programming but would like to know the >>>>>>details of how numerical values are assigned to various positional concepts >>>>>>(material, open files, etc.) and how they are weighted in the final value that >>>>>>the routine outputs. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks in advance, >>>>>>diomedesX
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.