Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 15:59:08 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks Bertil. I see that I don't have to answer dear Vincent as you do a much better job than I can :-) Ed On January 18, 2000 at 18:28:06, Bertil Eklund wrote: >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"i feel ssdf has been bought by using the outdated and dead slow 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.