Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:24:58 11/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2003 at 16:30:17, margolies,marc wrote: >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. But does CM speak for itself or NOT - I mean without a special book in SSDF?! Rolf >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.