Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:01:54 02/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 1999 at 02:49:49, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Vincent Diepeveen on February 24, 1999 at 17:48:10: > >>>I have an email from Frederic Friedel, and I am fully convinced that Fritz >>>did not 'cook' anything to get the answers right. >> >>I got the same email from Frederic and i'm completely convinced that Fritz >>did cook. >> >>Frederic is playing the innocence himselve, but in the meantime he has >>ordered to make an auto232 player for fritz that doesn't allow rebel9 >>to learn, that exchanges colors so that other learners of other chessprograms >>get confused, and that's just the top of the iceberg. This top has >>been confirmed by Karlsson, which i honour for being so nice to admit >>that fritz autoplayer doesn't allow learning. > >It's more likely Rebel9 did not learn because the Swedish test without the >"A" option. Some 6-7 months ago I went through the Rebel9 SSDF games >to verify this. I stopped counting after 100 games. Rebel9's learning (in >auto232 mode) was disabled in all these games. Ed, in that case i would shoot all SSDF members that did it. You provide the option to test without it, and they use it vs fritz. However, the email i received from Karlsson confirms that Fritz5 would have disabled learning anyway. >>Even more important than disallowing learning is the fact that only fritz5 >>auto232 player can collect the results. >> >>Let me give an example what happened. >> >>I got about 6 months ago a call from a tester who played around 20 games at >>auto232 player against Rebel9. >> >>He told me that i should stop chessprogram development, as my program >>didn't win a single game versus rebel9. >> >>So i first asked whether all games were more or less the same (learning >>from rebel9 you never know...). He told me clearly that the games were >>not the same as he turned off learning. >> >>This confused me. How can one not win a SINGLE Game vs rebel9? >>It was quickly solved when i got back the games. >> >>Diep won lucky several games, but those games were long. The games it >>lost were short (short after book). Diep was mated within say 50 moves >>or something. The games diep won were all 60 moves, after which the >>auto232 game stopped the games. However none of the games diep had >>mated rebel9. Further a big bunch of the games were clear draws, or >>3 fold repetition. >> >>Now diep doesn't collect game results. Rebel does, and the WAY in >>which it does caused the confusion that diep didn't win a single game: >> >>rebel9 screen showed a questionmark where diep won the game, >>and some draws got a questionmark too. Where rebel9 was winning, or >>had mated diep, it showed that rebel won. > >Well Vincent... there are enough people who can confirm the below >description of Rebel9 being in auto232 mode. I think you either have >your facts wrong or you are not so good informed. The text is taken >from the Rebel Home Page. No i am very well informed and what you say confirms this. Games get stopped at 60 moves. Then the games diep is winning are less than -5 for rebel, so rebel gives questionmark. Where rebel has won it already has mated, or has > +5. This is exactly what you tell below. [snip] >Using TOURNAMENT mode scores of the games are untouched always >having a "?" in the game result. >In Normal mode Rebel9 will decide upon the -5.00 / +5.00 bound to include >a "0-1" or "1-0" in the game result. Also in clear draw cases draw score is >put in the game result. >The match score on the screen is an exact reflection of the games in the >database. >I think you just forgot to create a "new Rebel database" before you >started auto232. As a result you were investigating old games from >previous auto232 matches too. No ed this didn't happen. What happened was that rebel when winning wins quickly, and when losing needs a long time to lose. That says something about book and toughness of rebel, and the internal evaluation of it. So this mistake was made by reading the screen of your database, and your algorithm exactly reflects why it happened. >Ed
This page took 0.01 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.