- drum roll -
... the opening books were disabled!!!
I do not know the exact result (if enough people are intereted I will
try to get it), but:
(1) Fritz won the tournament.
(2) M-Chess was in the second half of the tournament table.
(3) Nimzo became the king of draws.
Just another piece to complete the puzzle.....
"The last good thing written in C was Schuberts Symphony Number 9"
Here again the same rule:
can somebody show/post us the complete text file of
games so that we could study ourselves
Do you know what the time control was. I can't believe that Fritz
would win at a long time control?
The komputer that couldn't kompute the square root of
Then you don't understand "statistics". Remember Fritz won the *unlimited*
world computer chess championship in 1995, at 40/2 time control. It is
*not* a slouch, although I'd agree with others that if you played the Jakarta
event 4 times, you'd possibly have 4 different winners. There's still luck
in any rating based on < 20 or 30 games...
I tried to phone Franz Wiesenecker who is responsible for this
tournament, but he is on holidays. As soon as he is back I am able to
get more detailed information. I don't know exactly, but I think that
the time controls were 40/120 and 20/60. You must not overestimate one
single tournament, maybe Fritz was just "lucky" or maybe his opening
book is weak so Fritz had an advantage when they were disabled, or....
>AGAIN: I don't want you to do the list for me. But I like to discuss
>the list like some other guys like to discuss about
>Mchess and Marty Hirsch! You got the point?!
This is OK, but I think it is not WHAT you are discussing, it is the way
HOW you are discussing.
>> You are quite right! PLEASE, don't change anything in the making of the
>> Swedish rating list!
>Brilliant, don't change doubles and tripples.
>Let the programs play always the same games again and
>DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING!!
You have got the point!
I posted an article in rgcc and explained why I think that removing
doubles will be contraproductive.
>> I learned that most of the guys who argue against the SSDF don't even
>> know what the margin of error means. Do you expect profound critics from
>> such people?
>Don't answer to the people below IQ < 60 !
Yes! I meant exactly you with my "profound critics" statement! How did
>Don't answer to people wearing JEANS...
No, my next conclusion will be: Don't answer people hiding behind other
names. They will have their reasons to do so!
>> Everybody who thinks he can make it better is free to play 50000 or more
>> games according to his prefered rules!
>> The authors of chess programs are free to implement learning features so
>> that older programs can "defend" against killer openings.
>That is exactly what I want to explain Moritz and Dirk and others for
>many days now.
I am glad that we agree at least in some aspects!
>So you see: without knowing much about error margins (you have those
>PROFUND KNOWLEDGE, I know) we come to the same result!!
Maybe you came to the right result for the wrong reasons?! This is a
well known aspect of computer chess programs!
>Despite the fact that I would never give the advice: Don't change
>Such a result is nice if the listener is shortly before dying, or - at
>least - dead.
Another profound criticism copyrighted by Thorsten Czub.
>> Not long ago Ed Schroeder argued strongly against the list, now he is
>> the one and only number 1 with his Rebel 8.0 and he is using the list as
>> an advertising argument.
>What can you do else with such a list.
>It's just a tool. So it is used like a tool.
>Don't understand what you wanted to say to us with the above "Ed
OK, I will try to be more precise:
Schroeder, NOT being Number 1:
SSDF is bad! The list is bad! Says nothing about the real strength!
Schroeder, BEING Number 1:
Look! I am Number 1 in the SSDF list! Good list!
You see the inconsistency?
Either is a tool of no use or it is very useful. When the SSDF list was
bad when Rebel was not number 1, how can it be good when Rebel IS number
>> > But we are pleased that so many people around the world like what we >have
>> > done in the past and are doing in the present. We are indeed listening to
>> > them, and we try to answer questions about our work.
>> > For the moment there are many, many letters in the r.g.c.c. about killerbooks
>> > and repeated games. We are reading all the letters, and we are discussing
>> > this subject as much as we have time for. We have also discussions with several
>> > of the programmers, amongst them Ed Schroeder and Marty Hirsch.
>> Don't change anything! Don't stop counting doubles! Hopefully this will
>> force the programers to develop intelligent learning features.
>Aha. You want to vehicle/transpot/make evolution!
What else? Isn't this your opinion that the SSDF list is just a tool?
You have to be consequent!
>>So you want KILLER-BOOKS because they force the programmers to program
>>intelligent algos that react on other programs, and learn BTW ?
I don't want killer books and I don't want the SSDF people to do the job
for the programmers.
>> > Everybody must have understood, that there is no easy solution with making a
>> > list, that can satisfy all parts. Indeed it must be impossible.
>> Fully agreed!
>> Best wishes
>> Andreas Mader
>Also best wishes, but still not believing in the list and still not
>convinced because you are Herr Mader.
Sorry to hear that, Herr Czub.
>I know you too!! From several published articles.
>I found the PC-Schach and the MODULE also always very strange!!
There would have been something wrong with "Modul" and "PC-Schach", if
YOU wouldn't have found it strange!
BTW: I am sharing some of your opinions (not that ones regarding the
SSDF) but your writing stile makes it very difficult for me to "confess"
The time control of this tournament is/was 60 moves / 2 hours.
When F. Wiesenecker has the time he will add new programs to the
tournament and that is why there are no "final" standings. Although
every program has played 2 games against every other program, the number
of participants may grow. Hopefully Rebel 8 and M-Chess 6 (also without
opening libraries) will be added.
The scores of the programs are very close so the entrance of a new
participant will change the order! Please don't overestimate one single
1. Fritz 3 19.0
2. Quest 3 17.5
Rebel 7 17.5
4. M-Chess 4 16.5
5. Genius 2 16.0
Nimzo 3 16.0
8. Genius 3 15.5
9. Rebel 6 15.0
10. Hiarcs 4 14.5
M-Chess 5 14.5
12. W-Chess 14.0
13. Hiarcs 3 13.0
14. Gandalf 3.0
15. Diogenes 2.0
The games were played via AUTO232 with two PCs with the same hardware
and the same configuration.
What is the difference between Fritz 3 and Quest 3?
If these tournaments become popular, we will have to be careful of
hidden camouflaged opening books. What a monstrous thought!!!!
The komputer that couldn't keep a password safe from prying eyes and
> 1. Fritz 3 19.0
> 2. Quest 3 17.5
> Rebel 7 17.5
> 4. M-Chess 4 16.5
> 5. Genius 2 16.0
> Kallisto 16.0
> Nimzo 3 16.0
> 8. Genius 3 15.5
> 9. Rebel 6 15.0
>10. Hiarcs 4 14.5
> M-Chess 5 14.5
>12. W-Chess 14.0
>13. Hiarcs 3 13.0
>14. Gandalf 3.0
>15. Diogenes 2.0
>The games were played via AUTO232 with two PCs with the same hardware
>and the same configuration.
Where can we get the games? I want to replay them!
>> snipped info on non opening book tourney in Austria.
>If these tournaments become popular, we will have to be careful of
>hidden camouflaged opening books. What a monstrous thought!!!!
Or, god forbid, an algorithm that produces good opening moves!!!!
| Tim Mirabile <t...@mail.htp.com> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ |
| TimM on FICS - telnet://fics.onenet.net:5000/ PGP Key ID: B7CE30D1 |
I asked F. Wiesenecker the same question and he answered that Quest is
an experimental version with some improvements. Sorry, don't know more
:>When F. Wiesenecker has the time he will add new programs to the
:tournament and that is why there are no "final" standings. Although
:>every program has played 2 games against every other program, the
:>of participants may grow. Hopefully Rebel 8 and M-Chess 6 (also
:>opening libraries) will be added.
:>The scores of the programs are very close so the entrance of a new
:>participant will change the order! Please don't overestimate one
:> 1. Fritz 3 19.0
:> 2. Quest 3 17.5
:> Rebel 7 17.5
:> 4. M-Chess 4 16.5
:> 5. Genius 2 16.0
:> Kallisto 16.0
:> Nimzo 3 16.0
:> 8. Genius 3 15.5
:> 9. Rebel 6 15.0
:>10. Hiarcs 4 14.5
:> M-Chess 5 14.5
:>12. W-Chess 14.0
:>13. Hiarcs 3 13.0
:>14. Gandalf 3.0
:>15. Diogenes 2.0
:>The games were played via AUTO232 with two PCs with the same hardware
:>and the same configuration.
:Where can we get the games? I want to replay them!
Franz Wiesenecker sended all games to CSS. Maybe they are on the
"Servicediskette". I think the Nimzo games that came in later are not on
the disc. Hope this helps.
Actually Quest is a (maybe experimental) version from the AEGON -
Tournament 1995. It identifies itself as "Fritz 3.1 / Quest 3.1" and
is running in text mode.
I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:
TKR> A.Mader (andrea...@siemens.at) wrote:
TKR> : 1. Fritz 3 19.0
TKR> : 2. Quest 3 17.5
TKR> What is the difference between Fritz 3 and Quest 3?
Quest is an experimental version of fritz.
Ciao and see ya