Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 04:02:30 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 05:45:36, Sandro Necchi wrote: >Yes, because no one had it, but I was already thinking something about it... yes. >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. Mchess was a mile stone in many things. No wonder Mark Uniacke took Mchess as the reference for testing against. Here we completely agree. You and marty did a very good job in making computerchess professional. in increasing the level of quality ! It's a pity that marty's career went this way. I would have wished he ends in another championship title and not in resigning from computerchess. >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... well done. Today this is standard. you and marty (and martin bryant: colossus) were one of the pioniers in the field of commercial chess programs and book learning. >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. i see what your point of view is. >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. it can be a tough job to force programmers to do something they don't like to do :-)) >Here we perfectly agree, but still in the rating list these weaknesses should be >included as effecting the overall strenght... i see. >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. for this you need opening preparation. for humans and machines this is the same. learning is something for matches, when you play one game after another against the same opponent. >No, so this is a problem which for the program, non for the testers. >My opinion. ok. >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? if this is always the same game :-)) when i read e.g. in magazins that citroen cars have a problem with rust, and i read this in the 70ties and i read this NOW then it is obvious this is a prejudice and not a fact. Because in the 80ties they changed the cars. and the material and the methods. so if someone always comes with the same complain (rust) it is like somebody trying the same game in chess. it is not helpful ! >I was not aware of this and I think they should have been looking for a way to >solve this, if this is true. yes. i think this is normal. >I have criticized them on this too. I guess you should know this. yes. >You mean that the CB autoplayer was made/modified by Stefan Mk? no i meant that the DOS auto232 code was transferred and modified by Stefan Meyer Kahlen into Windows code, used in the shredder classic GUI. If chessbase would have used THIS modified code (as other programs have done), everthing would have been fine. >Yes, I agree on this and this is a pity. right. >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. this sounds like a happy end for the week end :-) >Thanks, you too. > >Sandro A computerchess week end :-))
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.