Author: margolies,marc
Date: 21:09:31 11/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
rolf you are right! CM does not speak at ssdf tournaments. The swedes are testing a component, not a product. And they are not testing it in its own environment but in a 'mutatis mutandis' manner that disregards its packaging or--alternatively tacitly endorses chessbase products revealing a ssdf bias. It also endorses removing the king engine from the chessmaster gui- a hack! but any component can be tested as a component. we all build systems here. Using chessbase book learning feature however is using someone else's code to tune a competitor's engine. The results become questionable. On November 02, 2003 at 18:24:58, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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.