Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Here we go again...

Author: Ed Schröder

Date: 04:19:11 11/15/98

Go up one level in this thread


>>>>>>>Others (who have also bought junior5) have found out the same.
>>>>
>>>>>fact, these persons have posted here.
>>>>
>>>>>>>Ed claimed the same very early.
>>>>
>>>>>fact too. ed said that the fritz5 autoplayer stops rebel from learning, posted
>>>>>in old discussions months ago.
>>>>>i have not said that you claimed something about the junior autoplayer ed.
>>>>>i said you claimed the same, meaning you said that rebels learning was not
>>>>>working in your observation months before. but anybody oversaw this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I claimed nothing. Junior5 even hasn't been installed on my autoplayers
>>>>>>so I can't know.
>>>>
>>>>>i have not said you claimed about junior. junior is only an engine in the fritz5
>>>>>user interface. what happens to junior might have also happened to the secret
>>>>>chessbase fritz5 autoplayer. and you proofed this autoplayer, or ?
>>>>>you had a log-file of the data send from ONE to Other machine, or ?
>>>>>And there was nothing in the data. all clean. only that rebel was unable to
>>>>>learn. or ? I remember that this was said months ago.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You have your facts completely wrong Thorsten.
>>>>
>>>>Let me summarize....
>>>>
>>>>#1. There were 3 people who had the F5 autoplayer (F5A) and they
>>>>sometimes passed information about the thing here in CCC.
>>>>
>>>>#2. One of them said: "F5A does not save opponent games".
>>>>
>>>>#3. I then reacted:
>>>>
>>>>a) This is horrible, it might influence the learner of opponents programs.
>>>>I was talking about ALL programs.
>>>
>>>The games of the ssdf list are public so I think that if it influence the
>>>learner of opponent programs then it can be proved.
>>>
>>>Uri

>>This is an impossible job. It can only be done by special debug software
>>or at least watching the games live. In any case bare game scores mean
>>nothing in this particular case.
>>
>>- Ed -

>If the opponent is losing the same game twice then it can be proved because
>the moves of the games are in http://home.interact.se/~w100107/welcome.htm

>If the opponent is playing a line that is impossible to play if it used a
>learner then it can be proved.

>Uri

Oh no this is no proof if a learner is working (has worked) correctly.

Programmers have learn files. That's were the learning is done. To
proof if a learner works correctly I need the learn file BEFORE and
AFTER a series of games. Then I compare them.

Games only will tell you nothing. You need the learn files to come
to a proper conclusion.

- Ed -



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.