Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 02:45:36 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 05:16:23, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On March 06, 2004 at 04:17:14, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>Yes, but on this matter I do not agree with you. If a program has no learning >>feature and will play a lost game more than once it has to be tested as it is >>and the double game included in the list. > >yes - here we disagree. in times of 6502 cpu's with 8 KB ram and 32 KB rom >learning was really no issue. Yes, because no one had it, but I was already thinking something about it... > >the learning was implemented first in the 68000 machines and some more expensive >fidelity machines, then came mephisto with the 68000 machines. Yes, but not real learning...the first commercial program with a good learning was M-Chess Pro. 5.0 As Marty stated too it was a my idea developped by him. > >I see no big sense in testing forte A versus Par excellence doing always the >same opening. Here we fully agree. I guess you have no idea how much I have been making pressure to Marty to make a true learning feature available... Maybe to let you understand my way to see things I should specify what follows: 1. I see a computer chess/chess program like a chess player. 2. I think the SSDF should give us a reliable data about how strong is a program compared to previous ones or others which I already have. 3. If we enter these programs in a tournament to find out how strong they are if they have no openings book or leaning features they will score less and the way the SSDF does (to me) to test the programs against each other is to simulate a tournament performance against other players; chess programs only as many strong chess players would ask too much money or would refuse to play against them. This is why the double or triple or what ever games should be included. 4. If you want these weaknesses to be removed in those programs you have to leave them in order to force the programmers to do something about. This is the only way to get real improvements. > >>Why? >>Because the owner will be facing the same situation in a match against it and >>since this effects the streght of the program it must be included to get more >>realistic data. > >which "owner" would play always the same game against the computer ?? > >how boring. Here we perfectly agree, but still in the rating list these weaknesses should be included as effecting the overall strenght... > > >>I mean the test should give the best possible idea of the strenght of a program >>EXACTLY as it is. So if a feature is not included in a program, which it >>effecting the program strenght, the test should be made that this feature is >>relavant in the final score. > >?? > >yes here we disagree. i would not count doubles again. Well, if you enter a program in a tournament could you stop the second game and asked to start again because the program is going to play exactly the same lost opening? No, so this is a problem which for the program, non for the testers. My opinion. > >it makes IMO not much sense and has not much to do with STRENGTH. Well, if you have a program that has a hole in the opening and it is know this will effect the program performance in a human tournament, so the streght. If you find a way to win all games against an opponent, how can you still believe it is very strong? > > >>This is and always has been my point of view. > >>In 1995 when we added the learning feature in MChess pro 5.0 there has been a >>discussion about if desabling it or not. >>I discussed this with SSDF stating that that feature was important for the final >>rating and it should have been included as that was something that would have >>effect the rating also against human players (the owners) and therefore >>something that would have forced the opponents to do the same soon. >>So, a real improvement and they lessen to me. > >>I think so far they did a good job. If there are ways to improve it I am sure >>they are willing to lesson. but since they are independent we cannot force them >>to accept something, but only suggest improvements. > >of course. >and we are different opinion about the "improvements". Of course. > >>OF COURSE I MEANT UNFAIR CRITICS, not positive critics. > >but who decides this. Well, at the end SSDF will decide as they are independent. > >when they threw out the TURBOKITS from Schaetzle and Bsteh for some very >strange reason, we criticized this e.g. ! I agree on this with you. > >When they did not test genius and hiars on similar hardware (excuse was: not >enough resources) we complained. Hiarcs was world computer chess champion at >this time. so there was IMO really a need to be precise about choosing the >hardware. I was not aware of this and I think they should have been looking for a way to solve this, if this is true. > >when they allowed the non standard chess base autoplayer it was IMO another case >where they decided wrong. allowing this autoplayer system was wrong. I have criticized them on this too. I guess you should know this. >there was no reason why a company should be allowed to use a SPECIAL method >while all others used the standard chrilly donninger stuff modified by stefan >meyer kahlen. >but for chessbase they made an exception. this was the open door for other >strange bugs or effects caused by this NON STANDARD autoplayer device. You mean that the CB autoplayer was made/modified by Stefan Mk? > >Shredder classic and Arena and many other programs e.g. have the normal >autoplayer stuff in. > >>I personally think before criticizing one should ask and get a clear picture of >>how they do and why...then if this can be improved we can give suggestions. >>It seems to me that most people here do not have clear ideas of how they do >>things and why, but still they make critics. This is not correct. Mine is a >>general statement and not referred to you. > >:-) > >i understand this completely. the reason why people do this kind of >conversations is mainly that they are not informed well about the facts. > >instead of discussing the computerchess topics other things get discussed. most >often personal things (gossip) and insults. Yes, I agree on this and this is a pity. > >IMO this is most often not done from people like you and me, will say, from >people who done this from the early beginning, but from the next generations of >computerchess people. IMO these generations like to talk about people who said >something instead of talking about the details. The thread about ssdf and >vincent is a good example for PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT WHAT OTHER COMPUTERCHESS >PEOPLE SAID istead of talking about the content (the mistakes in the ssdf-list). > >it seems somehow fashion and enjoyable to talk about computerchess people >instead of doing computerchess yourself. > >>OK, if you know the problems list them all and we can talk about them and see or >>try to find a way to improve things. >>Why not? >> >>Sandro > >In the last months or so i do not remember that i criticised them. >I was satisfied with their job. >but if we discuss things in general, i have to admit that there were some things >i was not satisfied in the years before. So, we are the same here even if I critized them only about the CB autotester which was not available on Fritz 5 commercial version. I still think the same way. > >I see no big problem in this. >i have nothing against the people who make the list. they are hobby guys like >you and me, and we all have different point of views from time to time, and than >we agree in other parts. Yes, I agree. > >Have a nice week end! Thanks, you too. 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.