Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:13:40 09/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2002 at 18:24:36, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 16, 2002 at 13:05:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On September 16, 2002 at 11:43:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>Diep never considers taking on d5 here. It says Rfd1 white up 0.117 >>>after 10 minutes of search still. > >>You must not answer me directly but perhaps you could comment on the question at >>any appropriate occasion. What would you say if you, as always participating in >>tournaments, observed such a game against Shredder who then played Nxd5. But >>your Diep and also Crafty BTW do NEVER even consider Nxd5 but play Rd1. Would >>you say that this is a clear example of a cook against SHredder in special? I >>ask because I'm not so familiar with all such tricks being known to the >>participants. Not long ago another operator of Rebel was proud to use other >>tricks, allowed tricks as he said, against Shredder. Are such tricks part of the >>tournament practice? And if yes, would you say that in _testings_ such cooks >>should be left out? Or is the golden rule the stupid "data is data, no matter >>where or how from"? > >your question is not clear. > >In case you know how to win a game, obviously you take that path to >win the game in question. > >Are you really asking me, if i understand well, whether it is >smart to not win a game if you know how you can win a game? > >So suppose next: Chessbase risks 5 million euro of sales by selling >an engine that doesn't have a single argument to sell software, for >example by some trick or bribery, or whatever. I'm not suggesting >anything, just saying that *suppose* they can give users an extra >reason *somehow* to sell the same number, or more, versions of >their product by topping SSDF list, or winning a world title. > >How does that compare to just entering a mainline in a book that wins >for the program in question? I might be naive but in the light of your informative answer the meaning of my question possibly was what could be the incentive to tune your program on such a shallow basis. Because the possibility is clear that the others in their team might also not sleep and perhaps had presented you a red herring only to go for another tune without you're being aware of. In short. Is it really the most important thing to do such book cooking, or is it more important to find new code for the improving of your baby?? For me as a layman it looks strange that shortly after Ed published the prog Thorsten tried to improve it. Or is it because he hopes to become the next operator of Rebel? Or ist just, as he said, a nice pass-time. > >Note i hope you stop your flame war against Thorsten. Acting like >a lunatic blaming one of worlds most experienced testers, not doing >his job well, But how could you define it as flame war??? I thought I had discovered something interesting. Believe it or not. And didn't you know that it isn't a good argument to rely on the status of someone without going into the details? If you teach me this way then why did you make that flame war against Bob Hyatt? I could ask you in the same style. whereas the real bad testers who you should blame >nowadays are so smart to take away lost games of their beloved engine, >it is not a good thing to blame Thorsten from something in that case. Please tell me more. Incredible. I did never read something about it. How can you conclude that certain testers left out lost games? Unbelievable. If that is true. > >From everyone on this planet if i had to pick 1 person to test in an >objective way, i would pick Thorsten. > >Now, from all the idiots who do silly tests here, you accuse that only >person from doing something wrong, whereas he is the only one to actually >*post* things as they are. *unmodified*. > >You have to take into account his hardware in his results >if that rings any bell with regards to results. > >Also i know from experience that there is a difference between >testing a tournament version of a product versus a commercial version. > >The tournament version of any strong todays program, >which is non public versions, is going to annihilate >any commercial public buyable version. Thanks for all these interesting news. > >From the top 10 which joined world champs 2002, i wouldn't be able >to mention a single engine where the public version is similar strong >to a tournament version. It is simply no compare. May I ask your opinion for one further question? Could I believe for sure thast the last tournament version is always the next public version??? When I think of Shredder, it gives me the idea that Stefan MM has something in his tournament machine he would never sell in public versions! Am I right with that guess? Rolf Tueschen > >Best regards, >Vincent > >>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.