Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:31:27 09/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
If you could only leave out the insults, your language would be much better. But for this time I ask only the following question here: WHERE ARE THE COMPLETE GAMES ?? On September 16, 2002 at 18:17:39, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On September 16, 2002 at 17:38:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>I'm a bit astonished by such a tone here, Dann. > > >:-))) > > > >>To answer your question I remind you of the point that I originally _thought_ >>that Thorsten posted or quoted the games, because they should "prove" or show >>that the created new style played "stronger" than the default version. > >right. >you play autoplayer games . yuo count the result. and when the result of the >match is better, you have a stronger version. thats the ssdf-way. >they do not value the HOW. > >since i valued the HOW, i knew the style is better. only i had to play >autoplayer games to show that. > >the games have been published. WHERE ARE THE COMPLETE GAMES ? > >you - unexperienced with autoplayer games (you have only 1 pc, right?) >see the games and wonder about the openings. > >but thats all normal. >so the problem is not the games, but YOUR relation to the information you see. > > > >> My >>question was if such games, my 5 examples, could do that successfully. > > >your examples show IMO nothing. all they show is how senseless it is to measure >strength by autoplayer games. WHERE ARE THE COMPLETE GAMES ? > > >> I thought >>'No'! If you doubt my original opinion then why these games were posted at all? > > >WHY these games were played ?? > >why do you buy a chess program when you do not understand about computerchess ?? > >play with it. but do not post here. this is not a chess forum but a >computerchess forum. > >the games have been played to prove that macheide is stronger then rebel.eng. WHERE ARE THE COMPLETE GAMES ? > >you do this with an event. you make games. i do this with 2 pairs of machines. >4 machines run day and night 40/120 level and produce data. this data is >collected. the data is ordered, posted and there. >in the same way XP rebel.eng played 10 games and lost 1-9 against fritz. > >style 51 will not lose that high. so it is stronger. >logical, or ? > >now it could be 51 is a killer for fritz. >therefore you try against all kind of other programs. > >again you play games . >day and night. >the machines do that almost automatically. >in the end you count. WHERE ARE THE COMPLETE GAMES ? > >thats all. thats the way it works. >we have done this way with Chess System Tal >(Chris had 4 autoplayer pairs in his company. One against genius, one against >mchess, one against fritz ...). >but each new version of program needs tuning. >so you have to tune the parameters. >thats a very difficult job. you have to find out how to set the weigthings. > >this is been done in the stage from version 1 of the style to version 56 of the >style (in my case). > >in the end the program is tuned. > >>They stood in context of Thorsten's claim that his style was stronger against >>Shredder ans so on. But the games don't prove it. > >the games prove it. YOU WROTE YOURSELF THAT THE GAMES DIDN'T PROVE IT! MUST I SEARCH FOR THE MESSAGE NUMBER? BUT AGAIN: WHERE ARE THE COMPLETE GAMES ? > > >>I found that the games contained a cook against Shredder. Explanation: because >>the Shredder book contained the weak line. What should this prove about the >>Macheide style??? Nothing IMO. > >it should prove nothing in this game. >but you do not play ONE game. you get it: you do NOT play ONE game. >you make MORE than 1 game. I'M NOT DEAF; THEREFORE I ASKED YOU: WHERE ARE THE COMPLETE GAMES YOU LET PLAY NIGHT AND DAYS ?????????? YOU GOT ONLY THE ROUGHLY THIRTY GAMES????????????????????????????? > > >>I asked a scientifically interesting (for me!!) question how people, I meant >>all, could detect such cookes games in testing. Because it made the tests weaker >>by definition! (Would you now doubt my scientific interest I showed from my >>first posting on? Either about SSDF or the DB2 team.) > > >opening books are part of the programs. or how do you think >Alexander Kure, Jeroen Noomen or Vincent or Sandro spent their time here ? > >just for reading your great posts ? > >they work all day and night to find a book line and a position that is good >for their programs. YES; AND YOUR MACHEIDE REBEL IS STRONGER THAN REBEL BEFORE IF YOU CAN BEAT THE OTHER PROGS BECAUSE OF A COOK IN THEIR BAD OPENING BOOK ???? > > > >>They are cooked because of the opening book. And I thought I had made a valuable >>_discovery_. > > >???? > >but its obvious. any chess player (who is capable to play chess !) >sees this instantly when replaying the games, or ? > >this is your discovery ?? > >oh man. > >>Just by playing through the lines. I found the examples. > >right. how else should it go. by asking nostradamus ? > > >>Please do not lay bad intentions into my mouth when they definitely are not >>there! > >nono. why should we ever lay bad intentions in your questions of a newbie. >its all only a question. > >>Of course I thought that it was a bad thing for Thorsten to post these games, >>but I did never even _insinuate_ that he tried to _cheat_ with them. For what >>purpose should he have done it??? > >the reason, you scientific expert is , to present the data. >you cannot leave out the games only because the opening was bad. >if you leave them out, it would suggest a DIFFERENT judgement. THEN WHERE ARE THE COMPLETE GAMES YOU PLAYED WITH AUTOPLAYER ?????? Rolf Tueschen
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.