Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 15:28:06 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 17:25:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 18, 2000 at 14:05:43, Bertil Eklund wrote: > >>On January 18, 2000 at 13:23:45, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On January 17, 2000 at 16:46:52, Rajen Gupta wrote: >>> >>>>I remember when i 1st started reading the web comp chess reports-rebel8 was the >>>>new champ-by a huge margin.since then there is no convincing evidence that later >>>>versions of rebel are stronger than rebel8. perhaps someone who does extensive >>>>testing like Mark Young or enrique can tell us (on the basis of actual tests and >>>>comp vs comp games please, not merely on subjective impressions)the following: >>> >>>About Rebel. First of all let's see what did Rebel get so high >>>at SSDF, as i guess that's what you refer to? >>> >>>Some months before rebel8 came out i emailed with Ed Schroeder. I emailed >>>asking him about whether lazy evaluation worked for him. Ed denied using >>>lazy evaluation. >>> >>>Some months later Rebel8 came out, basically searching a lot of nodes >>>a second faster than rebel7/6, apart from that i didn't have the >>>feeling rebel8 was much different from 7. Some say it was positionally >>>weaker than 6/7. Well exactly that happens when using lazy evaluation. Some says and some says, Rebel8 was much stronger than R6/7, whatever your feelings and suggestions tell you. >>Hi! >> >>As usual you guess and speculates all over. Rebel8 was a major step in > >I do not speculate but presented only facts. if i say: >"i feel ssdf has been bought by using the outdated and dead slow >k6 chip which is only fast for rebel and nimzo, instead of >the much cheaper and on average much better celeron", >THEN i would speculate. You are wrong again, when we choosed the AMD there was no fast Celerons out, and in general AMD is equal or better for chess-programs. not like you we check this with the performance of a dozen programs and not like you checks one or two and then knows everything in the whole world of cpu´s and computerchess. >If i say: "every email i get from Karlsson he again talks about the >fact that they have so little machines and so little financial possibilities >to buy machines and i feel that as a CLEAR and NOT SO POLITE question >to buy machines for SSDF", then i would completely setup CCC here and >i would not behave like a gentleman, though these few emails i get from >Karlsson aren't exactly asking for behaving like a gentleman, but >is a clear ask for hardware/financial sponsoring of SSDF, though i'm sure >that Karlsson has more money then i have, as i'm still student. Rubbish, everyoone buys his own machines, we haven´t asked anyone for a single krona. If I tell you I´m not rich is it the same as I ask you to pay my bills? >>Comp-chess, it was much stronger and MUCH MORE aggressive than its predecessors. >>I have played over 5000 games with R8 and followed a lot of them. Rebel8 with different books, read it again REBEL8 (eight)(acht)(VIII) >Aggressiveness isn't a plus objectively seen. I see this more. >Fritz6 is now on average kingside 0.25 more aggressive, is that >meaning it's better? > >In my eyes that's just making a few more patzer moves a game. > >Playing 5000 games with a book that on basically plays like 10 different >lines, only at the end altering moves a bit, that's a waste of time! > >You say you followed a lot of them. What is your rating, and wasn't >it extremely boring? Therefore I have my own big-book and several Genius-mixed books. >>> >>>Recently Ed said he *always* used lazy evaluation in Rebel. Ed probably >>>already somewhere in rebel used lazy evaluation. >>> >>>I felt rebel8 was tactical anything but weak. >> >>When it arrived it was one of the strongest. > >I more or less litterary said some time ago: "rebel8 was tactical >strongest commercial program when it got out". However Ed said he didn't feel >that way, so i didn't repeat that again. Rebel was the strongest tactical program when it came out and in another sentence anything but weak, at least don´t talk against yourself in two following sentences. > >>>For SSDF however rebel8 had 2 new things. >>>First of all a big tournament book from which each line was already >>>auto232 tested. > A big tournament-book and what´s the next sentence? An extremely small and boring book. Try to read your own articles before posting. At least try. >>The book of Rebel8 is still good, but a bit narrow. I have written a big >>tournament book that plays almost eveything, and the results are equal or maybe >>slighly worse, but the program plays very good of its own. > >I have different experience here. Rebel loses a lot with other books. >It was reduced to dust actually, but try to let rebel play at auto232 player >without tournament book! can possibly be true, but I guess you have checked one or maybe two games for that conclusion. I think it was you that wrote a long article against Fritz poor play without book. Everyone that have played with Fritz without or with a small book knows it is probably the best program in openings of its own. I have done it in 2 tournaments and it won both. >>Note that it's QUITE HARD to play with a different tournament book as it is >compiled into the executable of rebel8. No it isn´´t just deactivate this book and play with the book of your choice. Have you played with Rebel at all? >Please don't confuse tournament book with wide book! You can select what you want here to. >Because crafty and fritz (nowadays) use one big book doesn't mean that >everyone just uses 1 big book. Normal approach is obviously >a big wide book and a small tournament book. especially for testers that's >cool as you only need to update the small tournament book regurarly instead >of the many megabytes wide book. > >>>Secondly, and this gets really underestimated by everyone, it aborted >>>games that were the same, within 2 moves out of book. >>>Now obvious i'm not a fan of playing the same game over and over again, >>>but considering the nature of the book in rebel, which has some lengthy >>>and wide lines which >>>i call 'killerlines' (lines that objectively aren't representing the >>>state of the art theorem, but where you know in advance that you >>>win against certain other programs with, as they 'fall' for the line). > >>Ed kindly supported us with the possibility to play doubles. Only use Rebel a >>and it plays until mate, saves and play the same game again. > >Why kick out doubles without big discussion first? > >>>So if you win 20 games from rebel8 with 1.d4 ... 2.a3 >>>then in fact your games get 19 time aborted >> >>>Yet if in the richter rauzer a certain Qxe5 side line wins for rebel, >>>then you might lose 10 games in a row, as in a positoin where you're >>>already dead lost, there rebel is still in book having several >>>possibilities. > >>Rebel had a very "simple" book-learner and was very bad on avoiding lost games. >>It had no "aggressive" book-learner at all, didn´t try to repeat wins. > >Now you're contradicting. > >First you say: "it was equipped with a very small book" >Now you say: "it had no aggressive book learner" Everyone except you knows what a aggressive book-learner is, it tries to repeat wins only. >That obviously is nearly the same. If it always plays the Slav with >black and always tries to play the same line, because of a small book, >then there is hardly difference here with aggressive learner and small >book. Get the point? Rebel has payed for this, losing the in the same line repeatedly. >>>Further the interpretation of the games. Rebel finds in endgame pawns >>>worth very little. Let's look to rebel: boring openingsbook, but very >>>good book. No questions about that. >> >>It´s a matter of taste. > >Right it is. I find a very small book which doesn't allow many >lines already boring. This is a matter of taste. More or less i say >here that i myself (not my program!) play a boring kind of chess as i >always play the same lines. Plan to change that though. > >>>This means that a game rebel wins is usual SHORT. A game that it loses it >>>doesn't get bad out of book usual, so that is usual a rather long win. >> >>There was many sharp lines, yes, and when it went wrong the games could be short >>also. > >I was not referring to newer kure books against rebel8. I was referring >to my own program versus Rebel8 basically and some other programs >with exception of mchess,nimzo. > >>>Auto232 player aborts such a game after a certain amount of moves, then >>>rebel as it evaluates dead lost positions usually under -5, it puts a >>>'?' so a question mark as the result of the game. >> >>Games with score + or -5 was correctly reported 1-0 or 0-1, ? only if the game >>stopped of some reason or it ended with a stalemate. > >I don't know how you do this in SSDF, but all testers of mine made this >mistake initially. Ed has explained it. Of mine was it you. All SSDF-testers have the guilt to check all games for anomalies. For instance I always check every game. Of course out of 70000 games we could have done some mistakes, but not in every case that you thinks. > >If Rebel is down a rook and some pawns, then that's not -5.0 yet, so it >puts at result: "?". > >Now if DIEP or Shredder2, shredder3 would play rebel then most wins of >shredder would have "?" instead of 0-1 if one of these progs have black >or 1-0 if one of these progs have white. This is almost true Shredder stops after +- 7 and it´s almost the same as +-5 for Rebel. >bye the way, I reported this before in CCC. Weird that you see this for >the first time. What´s the problem, every game checked and two comps with different results, just check the results and change the result. >>>I forgot but don't aborted games which are repeated twice are >>also carrying a '?' as result? > >>No a parenthesis with a number (1) for one repetition. >>From Rebel9, Rebel plays on in doubles, but in the counter it´s noticed that >>there are doubles. > >WE WERE TALKING ABOUT REBEL8 DUDE! Your english is excellent but your language is not. Did you run out of arguments? At least you seems to be good to argue against yourself. I´m impressed, so much words but where is the content. > >>>Anyway, human factor gets *heavily* underestimated when interpreting results. >> >>What is "human" factor. > >Not taking into account the "?" results. > >>>I'm not sure what SSDF does, how many '?' results does Karlsson receive? >> >> >>?? >> >>>Anyway, this is already enough to explain the rating jump of Rebel at SSDF. >> >>I can´t see any explanation at all from you. It simply was the best when it was >>new. > >>Bertil SSDF > >You only tested rebel9 instead of rebel8? >Let's discuss rebel8 will we? We have, except for a short parenthesis that was your major argument. >And please don't close your eyes for what i comment on. >If i talk about rebel8, then don't talk about rebel9 yet. >This is the classical way of shutting eyes of some dudes. >Sure it was strong when it came out, but some of its strength was obviously >not fair. Prove it instead of spreading rumors and lies. >You skipped the double nodes a second part btw. Why didn't you take that >into account? Rebel7 to rebel8 basics and most important thing was that. > >Vincent > >>> >>>>which is the strongest version of rebel >>> >>>>is rebel getting progressively weaker with each version or is this merely >>>>because other programmes are getting disproportionately stronger? >>> >>>Of course a program never gets weaker. Others just learn how to beat it. >>> >>>>if rebel is actually getting weaker then what is the purpose of releasing new >>>>versions? >>> >>>Don't you want to get updated with new versions? >>> >>>>rajen
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.