Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 08:30:29 09/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
Rolf Tüschen claims that i cheated when playing autoplayer games. In fact he says that the openings have been chosen or selected, and that i maybe preselected special games. This is a personal insult. On September 16, 2002 at 09:16:18, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On September 15, 2002 at 18:00:59, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>About pre-arranging games, anybody can do it, play xxx games, delete yyy lost >>games from the PGN output and post the remaining. The SSDF can do, all the >>super-chess-freaks playing their valuable tournaments can do it, and and and. In >>the end it all comes down if you trust the poster. >> >>Science is nice, but how does one scientifically proof someone is lying? > > >After all I have to comment here because people here seem willing to digest >everything from great experts. As if everything could be possible with the >exception of a proof with 'science'. The truth is that we need a little bit of >logic, not Astrophysics or stuff like that, to know what is going on. > >At first I quote a retired collegue of Ed, let's call the "Not-To-Mentionable" >e.g. AB. Well, AB wrote me that XY (a famous tester) always understood his >testings as a WorldChampionship with XY as operator. So testing for him is >always testing program&operator, not the program alone. > >Then I have talked about the roughly 30 games in total. In 5, and these were >important wins of the new Macheide program version of Rebel, I could present >data, food for thought. In three (!) of the examples the same "cooked" opening >was played where Shredder was without defense. All that by chance as the testing >design normally required? I seriously doubt that. But it's clear that with such >a "chosen" bias the whole testing is worthless. So we need no science but only a >bit thinking to come to that conclusion. > >Because it's not true what Ed said. > >Ed is thinking that such cheating, leaving out the losses and only posting the >wins, would be not to discover. This is wrong. Simply because many are testing >and they know about the probable proceeding in tests. Too many wins, or too few >losses simply make them suspicious. So, it is clear that a specific environment >leads to comparable results. With the usual variance. Extreme results were >possible but not probable. If however a certain tester _always_ gets supergood >results for the program which is his favorite at the time, then it's clear that >this must have reasons in the bias input by the tester himself. I wouldn't call >it cheating, it's better defined as 'operator influence'. Of course then this >has nothing to do with sound testing. > >Jonas made a good argument. > >Jonas makes a difference between normal testing with all the science involved >and a human approach of an individual (I called him operator after the >information of "AB") who doesn't want to do classical testing but who wants to >prove that he's able to work on a program version with all his creativity to >make it a better program. The exact detils of his method remain a secret. I >would say that this is completely ok. > >If we forget about the announced claim of presenting data as a proof of the >secret. Because the presented games have nothing to do with the secret. BTW that >was the information "XY" wrote here into CCC after he had recovered from a first >confusion when he insulted me as the one who outed the secret of the secret. In >fact I did nothing else but showing that the games could never prove the better >strength of the Macheide Rebel. Neither statistically nor content-orientedly. > >But was the whole attempt worth nothing at all? > >With Jonas I think that "XY" did an interesting job. The problem is that we know >that he can't prove a thing, that the presented "proof" is a delusion full of >logical errors. So the job of the experts was to analyse the conditions of the >whole event. And although they came to the conclusion that nothing could be >proven, the fact, that a special style existed called Macheide, after the famous >Worldchampion LASKER's book, that is a real hype. So beyond all the necessary >reservation of scientists we have to realize that our modern times live from >magic and pretentiousness. The American motion picture Wag the Dog is the >artistic masterpiece where our modern media society got its memorial. As we know >from chess the threat is stronger -as idea- than being moved and having reality. >So the idea is stonger than what really happens. In truth we know that charisma >is 99% of the performance. > >Likewise we in CC have our own spin doctors and charismatic figures. Not only >the programmers can create programs but also we creative testers. Not what is >really happening is important but the creation of ideas of a potential >happening. As in chess the potential is richer than reality. Isn't that a good >side effect of such a hobby? Isn't reality much brighter with such dreams? > >So, in nuce I'm proud that I could contribute something. The SSDF published many >rankings, so why it shouldn't be allowed to create a Macheide version of Rebel? >Wasn't it the secret of Lasker, that he always won although he never (excuse me >but I want to present my case without unnecessary complexity) had better >positions? I think it's a great event when Lasker's strength could be utilized >in our modern chessplayers, the programs. We have many unsolved problems outside >classical science. Morphy (!) fields could be the next creative improvement of >chess programs. I know that Sheldrake is also a big outsider of science... ;) > >Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 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.