Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:08:00 09/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2002 at 21:28:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... I must thank you for taking your own authority and reputation to give me such a credit for the moment. I realize now why I caused such a huge confusion. Under that impression I must admit that the "rash" use of 'cooked' caused understandable irritation and at the _same_ time - I think - the context should explain my "innocence" in the basic question. Read below. > > > > >> >>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... Thanks that you now filled my optimistic subject entry with the necessary content. But here you can see, if your definition is complete, that only (3) could have been of interest in my case. But exactly that point gives me a good chance to get "rid" of the term 'cooked'. I had a much more _general_ understanding than only these three subdivisions. How about the words I 've already read in context with data: "broken", "corrupted", "self-contradictionary", "invalid", in short "bad". It really leads nowhere if I tried to do such lingual juggle. I hope that it might be cleared now that my discovery on Sunday in the '5 (30)' examples was such a shock for me that the hypothesis that Thorsten might have intentiously "cheated" or such had no place in my thoughts. But I knew from simple maths that such data couldn't prove anything good either! There is someone who creates new styles and then gives 30 games which are such a mess. Now I thought that he had done something terribly wrong for his own purpose. If I read all his long declarations now it looks as if I had written something about some supernatural event, when in fact I wrote about concrete games he presented here and elsewhere and in his detailed article on SCW. It looks now (at least to Thorsten and Ed) as if I had committed a crime in calling these games "bad" - when the only mistake might have been that I connected the games with the term 'cooked', which has the long history with bad connotations in CC. But that doesn't make the bad games "good" games! This is the reason why I find the whole showing of Thorsten now rather theatrical. And I have the impression that no one seems to care (moderation included) that Thorsten has definitely posted some ugly insults here. Not only against me. Now he's posting one lie after the other to let me look as if I were his 'foster son' somehow whose deviant behaviour Thorsten treated like a clever therapist. But this turns history on its head. At least Ed knows the truth. The whole affair (insults against many known persons in CC with unbelievably dirty vocabulary, in the archives of the CSS forum are probably a few references, search for 'parfümiert' what means perfumed) in 2000 had big consequences in Germany at least. Thorsten was completely isolated when Ed gave him a platform for his tournament. Since I was most famous for my opposition against him in the past I thought it was a good idea to find some peace. As it showed now that had no effect on Thorsten who hasn't the slightest respect for a person he can't judge. It's not that I'm not a famous CC expert. Even the undoubted expert in chessprogramming Chris W., his former favorite, is now defined as ill and such. You can read it in SCW, Thorsten's forum. Thorsten doesn't only insult, he's bringing the debate about his games into completely off-topic areas. And that seems to be tolerated here. > > > > > >> >>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. I want to apologize that this could have been understood in the way I couldn't foresee. I hope that now the context has been understood. It was out of logic or maybe statistics reasons I posted these questions and _not_ because I had an axe to grind personally. I have _still_ no idea for what purpose these 30 games have been presented. What the style is concerned Uri already proposed to compare Macheide games with the default Rebel, only that could give us insight. What the strength of Macheide concerns these 30 games at least have no statistical value whatsoever, and they also lack of all comprehensible comments. So that my original question is hypothetical and only theoretically interesting. But that is impossible to discuss right now in such emotional climate. There might be a better occasion for a debate. Rolf Tueschen > > > > >> >>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.