Author: margolies,marc
Date: 13:30:17 11/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
it is the responsibility of a tournament director to ensure the integrity of his tournament results through his actions and his own integrity. not an individual participant's behavior to ensure integrity of a whole rating system. johan deKonig's view is correct I think, because it is not the role of the artist to interpret his art for society. the art speaks for itself or it does not speak at all. the general trend of this argument is whether the strength of the engine is being tested fairly or rather is necessary for an over-all evaluation of a commercially available application. if we chose to use ssdf as a strict marketing tool, it's results must always become circumspect. the issue is consistency, i think. On November 01, 2003 at 06:31:01, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On November 01, 2003 at 04:53:57, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 01, 2003 at 02:40:42, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On October 31, 2003 at 18:00:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>Hi, Rolf, >>> >>>>Sandro, >>>>just a question of a more general content. I saw that you didn't comment on the >>>>whole Leiden& Book author debate. Still - could you give your opinion to the >>>>following question? >>> >>>OK, I think one should look only on his side and not criticize others...do you >>>understand what I mean? >>>Everybody know how good is Jeroem, still when you make a book for a chess >>>program you may experience that sometimes things do not work as expected. This >>>can happen to everybody and I do not see why criticize a book maker for those >>>things... >>>I always said that the opening book is part of a chess program and an important >>>part even if not the most important one which is the chess engine. >>>For me to evaluate a chess program without the opening book is like to evaluate >>>an airplane without the wings...it makes no sense. >>> >>>> >>>>What do you think about the question that a particular & very successful book >>>>author (like yourself for example) could be engaged to build the book for >>>>several different machines which participate in the same tournament at the same >>>>time? Would you find this ok? Or do you see problems of loyalty or whatever? >>> >>>I think there should be a limit to that. I would say no more than 2 programs and >>>the book should not be exactly the same. >>>I mean for me it is a sort of competition with other book makers. If I am >>>partecipating with one program only and another with 3 or more he has more >>>chances to win and so the result would be less important...I hope you understand >>>what I mean. >>>If the book is made by the same team for all chess programs, how can one call >>>himself maker of the opening book who got the title? Of course he got it...how >>>could have been otherwise? >>> >>>> >>>>If a certain successful book is given to many programs, how fair the competition >>>>is in your eyes from the perspectives of the "other" programs which don't get >>>>the good book? >>> >>>Yes, this is unfair to me. >>>Also I do not see how this can be done (allowed) without the permission of the >>>author... >>> >>>> >>>>Finally a question that always interested me as a CC layman: how many % you >>>>estimate the importance of a good book for today's chess machines? >>> >>>This is a very good question! >>>I always said, since 1978, that a good opening book is essential in today chess >>>programs. It is even more today because the programs are stronger and there are >>>faster hardwares. > >Hi Uri, > >> >>It can be a reason why it is not important. >>After all if programs are good enough they can also find better moves >>than the book moves by search. > >No, here we are NOT trying to find out what is best for a program. We are only >TALKING ABOUT RULES. > >What are the rules to be tested by SSDFD? > >I want to know them before I will allow my next book to be tested. >Pls. SSDF if you are reading let me know. > >If I will not agree. I may decide not to allow my book to be tested next time. > >Is this clear? > >SSDF is a unique list and the rules must be clear to everybody. This in my >opinion. > >If they use the worst or the best book it does not matter to me. It is just a >matter of rules which should be the same for everybody. > >> >>>So, now it shoud be clearified what a good opening book is. To me a good opening >>>book is something that helps the program to play better and score better. >>>This means that even a small book which brings to positions more suitable to a >>>specific chess program is a good book. It could be the best one for that >>>program. >> >>I agree and this reason is good enough not to be afraid when other programs use >>a book that was not build for them. >> >>I do not see the commercial demage for someone from the fact that chessmaster is >>using general.ctg > >The point is did CB allowed this? > >> >>I am not sure if this book is better for it then the book in the chessmaster CD >>and I do not see why other people take it as obvious that a book that was not >>build for chessmaster is better for it. > >Well, my opinion is that if the book is not of CM9K (no matter how good or bad >it is) and the learning feautures are of a different GUY, that is not CM9K which >is tested. >Why we do not make the same for other chess programs then? > >> >>I do not like all the complain of unfair advantage when it is even not proven >>that there is an advantage from using general.ctg >> >>I also do not think that the advantage from using a learner is very big because >>an old version of Ruffian without a learner did good result in the ssdf games >>inspite of the fact that Ruffian does not evaluate pawn storms. > >Even if you are right here it does not matter. What is going to be tested is not >CM9K. >The programmer should solve the problem of testing CM9K and not SSDF because he >is not willing to. > >All this is to me really UNBELIEVABLE! >> >>Uri > >Sandro
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.