Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:00:17 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 05:16:23, Thorsten Czub wrote: It is a hard fact that in todays 2004 standards the commercial world has invented many features which you all have to take into account. For hobbyists it's very difficult to keep up with trends and they are always too quick to accept solutions made by programmers. Programmers are there to make it easy for them. If programmers do not, then i do not say they should refuse to test, but if it is in some sense unpolite protocols which take care that they win extra points (and no software in SSDF has been saved from implementing unpolite standards) then such an organisation should refuse that. I'm a volunteer for my own chessclub and i lose a lot of time doing volunteer work for it, currently being secretary. When i was competition leader a few years ago, i lost about 2 days of my week to the chessclub. Lucky that is less now. Still even in normal chess there is many rules regarding the competitions and also there you are nowhere if you are not up to date with the latest info. Same thing happens in computerchess. It will get a mess if you don't take clear decisions. In case of SSDF it has become a mess because companies have TRIED simply stuff that should not have been accepted. We can discuss whether a feature like ignoring the same games (like Rebel soon had) is a useful feature or a worthless feature. We can argue about it. However disallowing other engines to learn or putting their hashtable to 1 MB is very clear violations of fair play. Whether that's because such interfaces do not support the protocol or whatever explanation there is (for 1 MB hashtable there is simply *no* fair explanation, this where for example the system time issues is a different thing and falls under technical knowledge). This is just a very small knowledge compared to all the rules i must know in order to FUNCTION as a secretary for my chessclub. There is a new mobile phone rule now. If the mobile phone gets triggered during a game, some competition leaders will give you a zero. It is a clear rule. That i disagree with it is irrelevant for the discussion here. Important is that i must know the rule and warn my members for it, so that we do NOT get tricked by this rule as a chessclub. Especially players who hardly check news and rules, must be warned of course. That has been done that is getting done and it will get repeated until either the rule is redone, or until everyone will realize it very well. In computerchess there is less technical issues than there is rules for normal chess. Under any definition an organisation of SSDF should know the issues that are there and take decisions and viewpoints whether they allow a new trick, or whether they disqualify all matches where a program X profitted from a new trick X. The correct action is to disqualify those matches where tricks were tried. A clear proof that a trick happened in such a match is a logical thing. Such simple type of actions that i take every day for my chessclub in an unpaid setting, i am not overly seeing at SSDF when a new trick is there. Each time new tricks were accepted simply. If they were not, then that was done at the background. I prefer such things on the foreground, so that it is clear that people should not try tricks in order to increase their rating. If someone is so 'stupid' to repeat a lost game (please realize i mention this meanwhile learning in diep is turned on) then he is simply stupid. It has happened to me before that i won from different opponents the same openings line! So you can discuss such issues. However stuff that i trigger which cripples my OPPONENTS is a clear thing that goes too far. It is logical commercial companies try tricks. Just like some try courtcases against each other too. (regrettably i must admit i have had several courtcase experiences too regarding computerchess and only computerchess issues, probably *no one* gets saved there, i never started one so far though; in europe courtcases mean full scale war and no one pays back your lawyer costs) Even in normal chess as i pointed out, the many players try continuesly things and tricks and pitfalls must get avoided continuesly and conflicts solved continuesly. A dutch saying says: "There is nothing new under the horizon" That definitely applies to computerchess. The 'dealing with' however is a different issue. In computerchess the nerds in general hardly know how to deal with it. >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. > >the learning was implemented first in the 68000 machines and some more expensive >fidelity machines, then came mephisto with the 68000 machines. > >I see no big sense in testing forte A versus Par excellence doing always the >same opening. > >>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. > > >>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. > >it makes IMO not much sense and has not much to do with STRENGTH. > > >>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 I MEANT UNFAIR CRITICS, not positive critics. > >but who decides this. > >when they threw out the TURBOKITS from Schaetzle and Bsteh for some very >strange reason, we criticized this e.g. ! > >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. > >when they allowed the non standard chess base autoplayer it was IMO another case >where they decided wrong. allowing this autoplayer system was wrong. >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. > >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. > >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. > >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. > >Have a nice 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.