Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 04:20:58 03/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 08, 2004 at 16:24:12, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>Consider I am having a friendly email exchange with a colleague programmer. >>While writing my stuff I (in my innocence) state, "... but lately I am having >>made not much progress". Then the programmer goes into paranoia mode and writes >>in CCC, "Ed Schroder has tried to diddle my source code". So much for ambiguous >>sentences, paranoia decides how they are interpreted. >Ed, could you please believe me for one time? - You are badly wrong. If that >happened THIS way it were paranoia, but NOT in the mentioned case from Vincent! >THERE we have an official institution so to speak which loses credibility if it >behaves this way. Can't you see the difference here? And yes, they don't do >science at all! But STILL this is a violation of independence for the testing >side. This should be trivial. But it's interesting what examples come into your >mind to defend the SSDF. I think the comparison I made fully applies. [razor] >>I have not changed my position, the complaint was the autoplayer should have >>been public. It was not, it was hidden and only available to 2-3 special testers >>and the SSDF people to test the new Fritz. Naturally it created a big fuss and >>rightly so. >Yes and this proves that SSDF would accept secret data or tools in favor of a >certain company. And this spoils the virginity for now and ever. You can't >repair this damage. They have no authority to claim independence anymore. A one time amateurish performance isn't the same thing as losing your independence, more below. [snips] >>You miss the most obvious one of all possible objections. Even if all games are >>published, even if all email exchanges are public or whatever improvements are >>included nothing will prevent a corrupt SSDF tester to manipulate the results by >>skipping lost games of his favorite engine. To solve this an arbiter should >>watch every SSDF game which is insanity as there are not enough resources, >>computer chess competion isn't a multi-billion dollar industry like soccer. >> >>Meaning, under the given circumstances there has to be some kind of basic trust, >>always, no way around. >No. You are a bit quick with your paranoia and insanity attachements! If they >would NOT have accepted this secret autoplayer from chessbase THEN you were >right. We could believe them, but NOT now after that scandal. Sorry, Ed. People at times do stupid things, Clinton lied, he lied to protect his privacy. Is Clinton therefore a pathological liar? Because of this one time stupidity you can never trust him anymore, that is the implication of the logic you are using. The question is if that is a good analysis of the case. For sure the SSDF did a stupid thing, stupid in the sense by not forseeing the logical consequences. It doesn't mean the autoplayer was not kosher, they checked it, found nothing wrong and used it. Later when the thing became public this was confirmed, a hollywood ending. Last, if the SDDF was such an unreliable organization wouldn't it be more logic they would have kept the information hidden? They did not and as a result the case blow right into their face. I would say that's an indirect proof of innocence. [snips] >>I understood the question, you on the other hand should try to think how your >>alleged objection could possibly be realistic. You speak of "invisible >>manipulations" that make the program to perform better. Just name one of such a >>possibility. >> >>HINT, programmers release their babies with the strongest settings possible. >Easy one. The hidden is directed to the test mode, the choice of the opponents. >But you dont understand the main objection. They lost their innocence because >they DID accept the secret tool. How do you know what they accept right now??? >Know what I mean? It is not necessary that I PROVE a cheat. They ALREADY >violated the standards of independent testing. This is a principal key necessity >in testings. After that you can bury the whole results. - That we still read >them is a consequence of no other sources. And NOT because their results are >kosher. - Ed, in testing standards it is possible only ONCE to lose your >virginity. Believe me for one time. - >You are always trying to defend them >against what hasn't been objected. Well, I am used to attack them if I think I have a case and have done so several times. The logical consequence is that you defend them also if they are under an unjust attack such as the allegation of shipping hardware to Sweden. >At least not by me. To all this you can add >all the technical objections I have published more than once. But that would be >too boring to explain to lays. They say that they are doing it right but I know >that tests can't be done this way. They use methods which are bound to certain >conditions. There certainly is room for improvement, to state the results have no meaning at all is amusing. >But they think that the giving of the +/- deviations PROVES that >they did it right. But the greatness of the deviations show that these results >have no meaning at all. Key: too few games. They say but we played over 90 000 >games. I say, yes, from the old Egyptians and their mummies. etc. pp. Too few games? Are you an expert on this issue? Please elaborate on the subject. My best, 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.