Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:28:48 09/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2002 at 17:38:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On September 16, 2002 at 17:01:13, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On September 16, 2002 at 15:53:06, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>[snip] >>>NB please that I did never say he faked or cheated data. All I said was: These >>>30 games including the five games I posted could_not_ show something relevant >>>about this styled Rebel. >> >>What then, was the meaning of the thread title: >>"How people could detect if a game was cooked?" >> >>Sounds like an accusation to me. Certainly in the context of the material you >>posted, I do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise. >>[snip] > >I'm a bit astonished by such a tone here, Dann. Now I must explain the English >meaning to you. It's sad. For the moment, I tend to take you at your word. However, the word "cooked" has a dark meaning as it has been bandied about here on multiple different occasions, and almost _always_ in a derogatory manner. You just (I hope) happened to choose an unfortunate word that has a lot of bad history... you can find it many times in the CCC archives, and as you will note, it almost always is the lead-in to a huge flame war... > >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. My >question was if such games, my 5 examples, could do that successfully. I thought >'No'! If you doubt my original opinion then why these games were posted at all? >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. > >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. I agree. Note that a program can get "cooked" in more than one way. (1) serendipitously playing a bad line and handing the opponent an easy win that looks stupid... (2) the opponent can play many games against the program to find a busted line and then play it at an opportune time. I saw someone beat NuChess using the same Nxe6 sacrifice Chaos used to beat Chess 4.x. They shared the same book, they shared the same ultimate fate as well. :) (3) the operator can play many games, and only post one or two showing his favorite "winning". The games would be real, but the result would be misleading as the other program might have won eight out of ten, yet it looks like it lost two of two. Only the last "crosses the line" IMHO... > >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.) As you are posing it, it is a legitimate question. But you just happened to choose an inflammatory term in posing the question... > >Note that I did NOT think that _Thorsten_ cooked these games!!!! I hope he will be happy to read that. On first glance it looked like you were saying that indirectly. Now it seems that impression was incorrect. > >They are cooked because of the opening book. And I thought I had made a valuable >_discovery_. Just by playing through the lines. I found the examples. > >Please do not lay bad intentions into my mouth when they definitely are not >there! > >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??? > >I repeat I found the cooks and asked a question "how people could detect such >cooks". Please stop pushing me in corners where my honest questions should look >like the insults, Thorsten read in them. There are no insults! > >Please give a short correction here if it's understood by now what the meaning >was. Thank you. > >It's important for me because Thorsten already wrote about my intentions to >destroy and so on. This is most insultive for me. > >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.