Author: Ossie Weiner
Date: 11:55:01 09/23/98
Moritz Berger wrote on Sept. 17, 1998:
<< I would even go further in praising Ossi Weiner: After saying some bad
things I didn't like at all about Fritz, ChessBase, Nunntest etc. he had the
greatness to admit he was wrong about the Nunn test. I admire him for being
able to do this in a public place like CSS. >>
First of all I want to say that I appreciate the friendly comments from
Moritz Berger. It's time that the discussions about computer chess become
less aggressive, with people showing more respect for each other's opinion.
We have to distinguish between *two different aspects* of the Nunn-Test:
(A) The selection of the test positions
(B) The execution of the test
As a matter of fact I have *never* accused GM John Nunn of any dishonest or
manipulative action. As most insiders know his was a totally wrong
information, which could have severly damaged my reputation.
I personally don't like the test positions, they tend to favour tactically
strong programs (like F5).
It's also quite arguable if this a suitable way to measure playing strength.
Anyhow I never thought for a second that John Nunn intended anything
incorrect.
What I still strongly disagree with are the *test methods*, as applied and
published in the CSS. I never received satisfactory answers on the
following questions:
* Why where the test games played by people working for (or with)
Chessbase GmbH?
* Why did they use the notoriously suspicious, secret, hidden,
non-available CB autoplayer?
* Why did they use only machines with 128 MB RAM (which happens to
favour F5)?
* Why no manual tests with different computers?
Now let me tell you a funny story:
Within a (most aggressive, insulting and disgusting) CSS article Matthias
Wuellenweber challenged me to a bet for 1.000 DM, that no other program
could beat Fritz 5 in a "Pseudo-Nunn-Test" (10 games each with white and
black; ECO positions not by random but in a certain sequence like A21 ...
B21 ... C21).
A few weeks ago a CSS reader called Helmut Schoeler sent Wuellenweber and me
20 test games played on tournament level under the described conditions.
Played on two equal Pentium 133 PCs Fritz 5 *LOST* against our good old
ChessGenius 5 with 12,0 - 8,0.
(All games are available in PGN format.) Interesting result, isn't it?
Now guess who refuses to pay his 1.000 DM bet !!
So much about fairplay and ethics ......
Moritz Berger doesn't like what I said about Chessbase and Fritz. That's
quite understandable as he is known to be a close friend of Chessbase.
Sorry, but I'm standing to my opinion.
A secret autoplayer is unfair and potentially dishonest. If the Fritz
autoplayer would be clean and honest, then Chessbase could have easily
*proved it* to the public. As they failed to do so, why should anybody trust
them (especially when the given situation is so extremely profitable for
them)?
Would you disagree with me if I say that something is wrong in computer
chess business?
Is it really necessary that people eat each other? I would be most happy to
find out that all suspicions were wrong, and to confirm that in public.
But how can I do that as long as Chessbase (and sadly enough also the SSDF)
are refusing any cooperation?
Best regards
Ossi Weiner
**************************************************************************
Original message by Moritz Berger (Sept. 17, 1998):
I am happy to report that the Nunn test of 10 opening positions developed by
GM Dr. John Nunn now has also been declared to be an independent (not
intentionally biased towards particular programs) means of comparing
programs by Ossi Weiner, distributor of Genius, Shredder, Nimzo and M-Chess.
While this does say nothing about the general viability of such an approach,
one of the most vocal critics of the Nunn test now has stated in an
interview with the German Computer Schach und Spiele Magazin that the story
[about cheating etc.] had been ended in a "satisfactory way".
Here's the quote from CSS June/July 1998 issue, page 40 ("Respect for
Grandmaster Nunn - an interview with Ossi Weiner"):
[translation done by my humble self, quoted with permission of CSS editor in
chief Frederic Friedel]:
---------------------------------------------------
CSS: The test was developed already in 1996, one year before Fritz 5 was
released.
Weiner: I didn't know this. Only now I learned that the positions of the
Nunn test have been available since February 1997 when they were announced
in an article in CSS (the positions have been available for all interested
readers since then from CSS magazine). Myself and many others have
overlooked this fact. I assumed that Chessbase got the positions much
earlier than its competitors.
CSS: Not at all. Chessbase, too, at first ignored the test. Only after the
first games became known it caught their attention.
Weiner: Nevertheless you must concede that not everything went smoothly at
the beginning. I would have preferred if the CSS editors had sent the
positions already early in 1997 to all important programmers. This would
have killed this whole discussion right from the start. Meanwhile I now had
an opportunity to talk about this with Frans Morsch. He assured me that
Fritz 5 has not been tuned on the Nunn test. That ends this story for me in
a satisfactory way.
CSS: So you no longer insist that the Nunn test is a cheat, that Dr. John
was acting together with ChessBase?
Weiner: It was never my intention to claim that Grandmaster John Nunn
cheated and manipulated the test. The opposite is true, I feel a high esteem
for Grandmaster Nunn and I don't understand how you arrived at this strange
interpretation of my words.
---------------------------------------------------
Moritz
******************************************************************
Subject: Re: Interesting statement from Ossi Weiner about Nunn test
From: Moritz Berger
E-mail: MoritzBerger@email.msn.com
Message Number: 26944
Date: September 17, 1998 at 17:02:40
In Reply to: Re: Interesting statement from Ossi Weiner about Nunn test
Message ID: 26941
Posted by: Mark Young
At: Drphibs@msn.com
On: September 17, 1998 at 16:59:04
On September 17, 1998 at 16:59:04, Mark Young wrote:
> Its nice to see that some people can still look at facts and admit they
> were wrong, even if it takes them a while. On the other hand some people >
have a bit more foam to spew out of their mouth before they regain their >
sanity.
I would even go further in praising Ossi Weiner: After saying some bad
things I didn't like at all about Fritz, ChessBase, Nunntest etc. he had the
greatness to admit he was wrong about the Nunn test. I admire him for being
able to do this in a public place like CSS.
Moritz
- Ossie Weiner
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.