Fritz, Extreme, and the competition

[wridgway]

The 9/96 SSDS rating list shows Fritz 4.0 about 40 rating points below
Fritz 3.0, so does another rating list posted here recently. Is this well
known or do people find this surprising? Isn't it unusual to sell a
product which has declined in strength from the previous version?
Also, Extreme Chess is said to be "based" on Fritz 4.01...Is it also
possibly weaker than Fritz 3.0, or is 4.01 an improvement?
Finally, Genius, Rebel and Hiarcs are all much higher rated on these
lists than Fritz, even though Fritz has had some great press (beating GK,
etc). Do people here agree they are much stronger programs?
I am at master level strength and can generally beat computers rated
about 2500 on ICC, etc, and sometimes higher rated ones...I am looking for
a new computer program which will challenge me and would like people's
advice on these rating lists re: which is the strongest program. I was
about to get Extreme chess to start, until i saw the rating lists.
Thanks! e-mail welcome.

[Ed Schröder]

From: wrid...@leland.stanford.edu (wridgway)

: The 9/96 SSDS rating list shows Fritz 4.0 about 40 rating points below

: Fritz 3.0, so does another rating list posted here recently. Is this
: well known or do people find this surprising? Isn't it unusual to sell
: a product which has declined in strength from the previous version?

IMO Fritz4 is underrated on SSDF (probably?) because of the initial
EP bug which later was fixed. From experience I know such a small bug
may influence the playing strength a lot.

Question is how many games are played with Fritz 4.0 and how many games
with the patched version on SSDF.

Perhaps somebody of SSDF can tell?
Goran?

I personally do not believe Fritz4 is weaker than Fritz3.
Just a feeling...

- Ed -

[Robert Hyatt]

Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: From: wrid...@leland.stanford.edu (wridgway)

:
:

I think it's just more "noise" in the equation. I'm certain that some things
I've done in Crafty hurt its play against computers, but help significantly
against humans. Things like playing aggressively, etc. It might be that
Fritz fell into this same hole. I don't personally worry about such things,
because I *have* to believe in what I'm doing and that Crafty is getting
better, otherwise there would not be much point in working on it as hard as
I am. I suspect Frans is the same way, as are most computer-chess-types.

Remember, the SSDF is not the only way to measure a program's strength,
because it is only using electronic opponents, which is a somewhat different
game than chess against a human. Join us on ICC or chess.net for a while
and you'll see what I mean...

Bob

[Dirk Frickenschmidt]

I share your estimation.

In all the games I payed with Fritz4.01 (the corrected version) against
other programs it definitely played better chess than Fritz3 (*much* better
positional play while tactics have only become a bit slower).

So the Fritz4 rating in the Swedish list became one of the real enigmas I
never understood.

The only problem is: as private person I cannot play enough games manually
with Fritz 4.01 to see the exact playing strength. So I have to rely on my
own test impressions in a limited number of played games.

The best the chessbase team can do is the implementation of the autoplayer
feature in their next Fritz version to allow everybody to come to solid
results!

The SSDF testers shurely will also appreciate this. :-)

And perhaps next time they will be fair enough to separate (not
necessarlily: delete) the results of an obviously buggy version from the
results of the real one following soon after? Am I wrong to think they
haven't done this? ;-)

Yours Dirk

Ed Schröder <rebc...@xs4all.nl> schrieb im Beitrag
<581j3b$p...@news.xs4all.nl>...

[ChessBase GmbH]

Frankly neither we at ChessBase (nor Frans Morsch I think) have ever
written a program without an EP bug since 1986. With ChessBase 6.0 the EP
bug in the new data format was surprisingly early catched by the beta
testers. Hope that doesn't mean bad luck. The old CBF-format had a
beautiful EP-problem.

Playing engine Fritz311 against Fritz401 (EP-clean) in Fritz4 at
tournament conditions seems to give 4.01 a 50 elo upper hand if both
engines use the same openings book. SSDF says they use the corrected 4.01
now. We think the main problem is the openings book. We parted from the
solid and experienced De Gorter work of Fritz3 and produced our own stuff
according to human chess considerations. A mistake. We have no competence
and no capacities to play real computer vs. computer games.

Matthias Wuellenweber, ChessBase GmbH

[Harald Faber]

Hello Ed,

I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:

ES> IMO Fritz4 is underrated on SSDF (probably?) because of the initial
ES> EP bug which later was fixed. From experience I know such a small bug
ES> may influence the playing strength a lot.

It was fixed a few times with no success; they fixed one bug but produced
another...
The latest (5th) fix, IMHO dated October 1996, corrected the three known
endgame-mistakes and the move-twice-in-a-row-fault in opening.
It still has the bug that the engine size (at least the suggested size)
changes every time you go into the engine-menu...
Hope that the endgame-probs are absolutely solved now. I won't
investigate, my patience on that program is awawy...

ES> Question is how many games are played with Fritz 4.0 and how many games
ES> with the patched version on SSDF.

They really tested 4.01 but look above they won't be playing many games
with the latest bugfix because it is out for only few weeks and I don't
think that SSDF deletes the old games...

ES> I personally do not believe Fritz4 is weaker than Fritz3.
ES> Just a feeling...

Depends on the configuration of Fritz3. ;-)

Still testing Fritz4.01 (486/133 16MB Hash) against Genius3 (P75 31MB
Hash) in 10 games with 3min/move. Of course this is not important for
statistics but for me thhis is more than enough to see what's going on.

Ciao and see ya
Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

Hello wridgway,

I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:

w> The 9/96 SSDS rating list shows Fritz 4.0 about 40 rating points below
w> Fritz 3.0, so does another rating list posted here recently. Is this well
w> known or do people find this surprising? Isn't it unusual to sell a
w> product which has declined in strength from the previous version?

For me Fritz3 with a certain configuration is very very strong and hard to
beat, I even cannot remember any loss of Fritz3 plus my configuration.
Anyway Chessbase wants to sell programs, xmas was near ans Win95 started
to spread... so some nice features had to be added and transferred to a
windows-version. i.e. the multi-engine-concept, which of course leads to
ver different results while playing engine against engine (depends on
which engine is loaded first and at start of program)... :-)

w> Also, Extreme Chess is said to be "based" on Fritz 4.01...Is it also
w> possibly weaker than Fritz 3.0, or is 4.01 an improvement?

I wouldn't believe it is an improvement... maximum will be 4.01 and this
is the tested version on SSDF.

w> Finally, Genius, Rebel and Hiarcs are all much higher rated on these
w> lists than Fritz, even though Fritz has had some great press (beating GK,
w> etc). Do people here agree they are much stronger programs?

Jein. :-)
Remember Fritz did beat Kasparow in 5min-game, SSDF tests in tournament-
mode.
Fritz3 basically is not that strong, but if you use these field-piece-
tables it is really playing better.
When you finally change the move preferences (i.e. deny Fritz to play
french, tell him to only play 1.e4 etc) you get a program which is IMHO
not weaker than the top programs. OK, I have just to test MChessPro6 but
in email-games Fritz3+FFT+special book he played 2 draws against Rebel8,
won another and now is in winning position in the last game of the four. I
find it impressing.

w> I am at master level strength and can generally beat computers rated
w> about 2500 on ICC, etc, and sometimes higher rated ones...I am looking for
w> a new computer program which will challenge me and would like people's
w> advice on these rating lists re: which is the strongest program. I was
w> about to get Extreme chess to start, until i saw the rating lists.

For blitz-play you can take it, for serious games I would prefer Rebel and
MChessPro.

[mclane]

wrid...@leland.stanford.edu (wridgway) wrote:

>The 9/96 SSDS rating list shows Fritz 4.0 about 40 rating points below

>Fritz 3.0, so does another rating list posted here recently. Is this well

>known or do people find this surprising? Isn't it unusual to sell a

>product which has declined in strength from the previous version?

> Also, Extreme Chess is said to be "based" on Fritz 4.01...Is it also

>possibly weaker than Fritz 3.0, or is 4.01 an improvement?

> Finally, Genius, Rebel and Hiarcs are all much higher rated on these

>lists than Fritz, even though Fritz has had some great press (beating GK,

>etc). Do people here agree they are much stronger programs?

Fritz and co have a better-lieing lobby.
E.g. Fredric Friedel, Gary Kasparov and the rest (not to forget the
nice CHess-Base-Company) try very hard to suggest or manipulate the
public-image the way that anybody should believe:

Fritz is the strongest program of the world.

It isn't . And you kow. I know. And many other experts.
But there are many others that find out much later, after they had
spent 199,- DM into the product.
And many others never find out.

So all in all it is better to make PR-work and lie instead of making
no money and be honest!
Thats their materialistic point of view. And it works. It is called
capitalism.

> I am at master level strength and can generally beat computers rated

>about 2500 on ICC, etc, and sometimes higher rated ones...I am looking for

>a new computer program which will challenge me and would like people's

>advice on these rating lists re: which is the strongest program. I was

>about to get Extreme chess to start, until i saw the rating lists.

> Thanks! e-mail welcome.

NONO. Buy Rebel8 to have a good positional playing opponent. You will
see nice pawn-queques and active play. Rebel8 is the strongest
program, in the moment. it plays nice human-chess.
Or buy Mchess6 or Hiarcs5.
They also play nice chess .

[mclane]

Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH) wrote:

Mr. Wuellenweber said:
>Frankly neither we at ChessBase (nor Frans Morsch I think) have ever
>written a program without an EP bug since 1986.

You mean, since 1986 ChessBase nor Fritz was able to play
in the rules of chess !!
Amazing. Does Kasparov know about this EP-rule ?!

The following game was played between GANDALF
and Fritz4.00.
There you can see the EP-bug resulting a LOSS
DATE : 03-01-96
WHITE : GANDALF 2.1 Amateur, 95,- DM,
Paderborn: 6,5 points, rank 10,
Artificial Intelligence Program
1000 positions / second, >=5 ply search-depth
BLACK : Fritz4 for Windows, Hong-Kong World Champion, 200,- DM
Paderborn: 7 points, rank 6
Artificial Stupidity Program
>100.000 positions / second, >=10 ply search-depth
ROUND : 1, 40/120 both 486-100 Mhz
RESULT: 1:0
DATE : 03-01-96
WHITE : GANDALF 2.1 Amateur, 95,- DM, Paderborn: 6,5 points, rank 10,
Artificial Intelligence Program
1000 positions / second, >=5 ply search-depth
BLACK : Fritz4 for Windows, Hong-Kong World Champion, 200,- DM
Paderborn: 7 points, rank 6
Artificial Stupidity Program
>100.000 positions / second, >=10 ply search-depth
ROUND : 2, 40/120 both 486-100 Mhz

[Event "40/120"]
[Site ""]
[Date "1996.01.01"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Fritz4.00"]
[Black "Gandalf 2.1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2043"]
[WhiteElo "2287"]
[ECO "D09"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. g3 Bf5 6. Qb3
Fritz feels + 1 !!
Thats almost counting the material!!
Qd7 7. Qxb7
Still one pawn in advance!!
7... Rb8
8. Qa6 Nb4
Fritz now feels +1,36.
9. Qxa7 Nc2+
Fritz now says arround sero. It thinks it has a draw.
10. Kd1 Fritz still in plus an expects Rc8.
It need 10 plies permanent brain to see -1,22! Amazing what SEARCH
does. And what not.

Rd8 11. e6 Qxe6 12. Qa4+ c6 13. e4
Fritz4.00 (without EP-knowledge)
consider 13.e4 Qxe4 14.Nbd2 Qe6 and evaluates -0,53
But opponent knows about EP and plays
dxe3ep+ !!
and suddenly Fritz feels -+6,16 and less.
14. Nbd2 Nxa1 15. fxe3 Bc2+ 16. Qxc2 Nxc2 17. Kxc2 Qxe3 18. Be2 0-1

>With ChessBase 6.0 the EP
>bug in the new data format was surprisingly early catched by the beta
>testers. Hope that doesn't mean bad luck. The old CBF-format had a
>beautiful EP-problem.

>Playing engine Fritz311 against Fritz401 (EP-clean) in Fritz4 at
>tournament conditions seems to give 4.01 a 50 elo upper hand if both
>engines use the same openings book.

Unbelievable. Fritz3 is stronger than Fritz4.01 (ssdf-list!)
Fritz3 is stronger because it has one rule less to follow.
That says that the EP-knowledges reduces the chess-strength.
You should throw out any knowledge and Fritz is a master.

> SSDF says they use the corrected 4.01
>now. We think the main problem is the openings book. We parted from the
>solid and experienced De Gorter work of Fritz3 and produced our own stuff
>according to human chess considerations. A mistake.

You seem to be very good in computerchess.

> We have no competence
I always thought this!! Amazing. Now you tell us the same!!!
I was always right!

>and no capacities to play real computer vs. computer games.

The biggest chess company has no capacities ?
I have an old 486-100 Mhz, I could lend it to you for one week...

Or do you mean human-capacities ?! But you have Frederic Friedel and
Kasparov!

Oh - now I see ... you are again right. Fischer is better!

>Matthias Wuellenweber, ChessBase GmbH

[Chris Whittington]

mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>
> wrid...@leland.stanford.edu (wridgway) wrote:
>
> >The 9/96 SSDS rating list shows Fritz 4.0 about 40 rating points below
> >Fritz 3.0, so does another rating list posted here recently. Is this well
> >known or do people find this surprising? Isn't it unusual to sell a
> >product which has declined in strength from the previous version?
> > Also, Extreme Chess is said to be "based" on Fritz 4.01...Is it also
> >possibly weaker than Fritz 3.0, or is 4.01 an improvement?
> > Finally, Genius, Rebel and Hiarcs are all much higher rated on these
> >lists than Fritz, even though Fritz has had some great press (beating GK,
> >etc). Do people here agree they are much stronger programs?
>
>
> Fritz and co have a better-lieing lobby.
> E.g. Fredric Friedel, Gary Kasparov and the rest (not to forget the
> nice CHess-Base-Company) try very hard to suggest or manipulate the
> public-image the way that anybody should believe:
>
> Fritz is the strongest program of the world.
>
> It isn't . And you kow. I know. And many other experts.
> But there are many others that find out much later, after they had
> spent 199,- DM into the product.
> And many others never find out.
>
> So all in all it is better to make PR-work and lie instead of making
> no money and be honest!
> Thats their materialistic point of view. And it works. It is called
> capitalism.

Thorsten, if you had any money, the lawyers would be having a field
day :)

Chris Whittington

[ChessBase GmbH]

> You mean, since 1986 ChessBase nor Fritz was able to play
> in the rules of chess !!

No, sorry you misunderstood me, it is just an error in the CBF-format
which has (had) to be compensated by some special checking in the
interface.

> Unbelievable. Fritz3 is stronger than Fritz4.01 (ssdf-list!)
> Fritz3 is stronger because it has one rule less to follow.
> That says that the EP-knowledges reduces the chess-strength.
> You should throw out any knowledge and Fritz is a master.

No, Fritz3 didn't have an EP-bug in the published version, Fritz4.00 had.
Fritz4.01 hadn't. I am sorry if you haven't got the newer engine yet.
Please download it from www.chessbase.com

>> We have no competence...

> I always thought this!! Amazing. Now you tell us the same!!!
> I was always right!

Please give us some time. We are trying to get better and criticism
helps us. The more brutal the better. But programming
is just so bloody difficult.

What is your real name, Mr. McLane? You seem to venture some harsh
opinions against us and I am a bit ticklish if that goes anonymous.
On the other hand you show high expertise in computer chess so I
appreciate the discussion with you.

Yours respectfully, Matthias Wuellenweber

[ChessBase GmbH]

>> And many others never find out.

We intend to make all known games downloadable which Fritz ever played
against human opponents.

Please send us as many lost games of Fritz/Extreme as possible so that we
can publish it on our web page.

Thanks, Matthias Wuellenweber, 10011...@compuserve.com

[ChessBase GmbH]

> Hope that the endgame-probs are absolutely solved now. I won't
> investigate, my patience on that program is awawy...

Harald, I remember you once wrote a detailed letter to us pointing one of
these endgame CD problems out. This enabled us to solve most of the
things.

Playing from an endgame CD is a complex task. You cannot just say "Whats
the best move" and play it, because the evaluation of positions in the
database is sometimes "moves to mate", sometimes "moves to promotion" or
"moves to losing a piece" and so on. So you have to catch dozens of
special cases where the main engine has to override the endgame data
base. I heard that the new TableBases always store the number of moves to
mate. That should make it much easier. But I think we are now properly
riding this tiger.

> It still has the bug that the engine size (at least the suggested size)
> changes every time you go into the engine-menu...

Thats intended behaviour: It shows the available physical RAM. Under
Windows95 this fluctuates severely. Take this value and you will be sure
not to run into any virtual memory problems with the hash tables. The
value is a suggestion to the user. The real hash size is displayed in the
engine list.

Yours, Matthias

[mclane]

Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org (Harald Faber) wrote:

>Hello Ed,

>I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:

>ES> IMO Fritz4 is underrated on SSDF (probably?) because of the initial
>ES> EP bug which later was fixed. From experience I know such a small bug
>ES> may influence the playing strength a lot.

>It was fixed a few times with no success; they fixed one bug but produced
>another...
>The latest (5th) fix, IMHO dated October 1996, corrected the three known
>endgame-mistakes and the move-twice-in-a-row-fault in opening.

>It still has the bug that the engine size (at least the suggested size)
>changes every time you go into the engine-menu...

>Hope that the endgame-probs are absolutely solved now. I won't
>investigate, my patience on that program is awawy...

>ES> Question is how many games are played with Fritz 4.0 and how many games

>ES> with the patched version on SSDF.

>They really tested 4.01 but look above they won't be playing many games
>with the latest bugfix because it is out for only few weeks and I don't
>think that SSDF deletes the old games...

>ES> I personally do not believe Fritz4 is weaker than Fritz3.
>ES> Just a feeling...

>Depends on the configuration of Fritz3. ;-)

Depends on the configuration of Fritz4.01. Try Fritz4,.01 with 32MB
hash and you will see unbelievable things happen.
Of course ChessBase does not know about - they don't have the
capacities and the money to buy 64 MB ( I don't have that money
too...)

>Still testing Fritz4.01 (486/133 16MB Hash) against Genius3 (P75 31MB
>Hash) in 10 games with 3min/move. Of course this is not important for
>statistics but for me thhis is more than enough to see what's going on.

>Ciao and see ya
>Harald
>--
With 16 MB it could be stronger, with 32MB even more. But with 8MB or
less, iFritz4.01 is definetly weaker than Fritz3 with /x mode.

[mclane]

Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH) wrote:

>Thanks, Matthias Wuellenweber, 10011...@compuserve.com

If I would send you the game-data, you could merge an opening-book out
of it, for the next Fritz releases.
Then the next championship it could happen that someone has pepared on
fritz4 and plays one killer-opening and maybe this won't work anymore
because I HAVE SENT CHESS BASE loosing games of fritz.
No - that is not in my interest. I like to see fritz lose.

BTW: maybe you can give us a comment, why van der viel made draw
against quest, at the aegon-tounament 1996, in the last round.
In my opinon the position is easy to win against a chess-program, if I
am a human and have the strength of van-der wiel, of if I am another
intelligent chess-program and have to continue the game.

What do you think, was the reason that van der wiel decided to make
draw instead of winning against quest ?!

[mclane]

Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH) wrote:

>> You mean, since 1986 ChessBase nor Fritz was able to play
>> in the rules of chess !!

>No, sorry you misunderstood me, it is just an error in the CBF-format
>which has (had) to be compensated by some special checking in the
>interface.

Sorry. I have not seen you pointing on cbf.-format than.

>> Unbelievable. Fritz3 is stronger than Fritz4.01 (ssdf-list!)
>> Fritz3 is stronger because it has one rule less to follow.
>> That says that the EP-knowledges reduces the chess-strength.
>> You should throw out any knowledge and Fritz is a master.

>No, Fritz3 didn't have an EP-bug in the published version, Fritz4.00 had.
>Fritz4.01 hadn't. I am sorry if you haven't got the newer engine yet.
>Please download it from www.chessbase.com

I have the later engine. And it plays also weaker than fritz3.
Was Fritz3 able to recognize EP in the tree ? Or only in the
root-position?! I don't remember it...
My point was wrong if Fritz3 does know about EP everywhere.

>>> We have no competence...
>> I always thought this!! Amazing. Now you tell us the same!!!
>> I was always right!

>Please give us some time. We are trying to get better and criticism
>helps us. The more brutal the better. But programming
>is just so bloody difficult.

You are programming since 1986 and earlier. Also in your public-domain
ChessBase for atari, or was it does, I don't remember it, too long
ago, before Frederic Friedel convinced you to MAKE A COMMERCIAL
program instead of founding a CLUB that shares the program and data
for free...
So the time advantage is on your side.
I am not the right person to help you with my critics. When I send you
games between Gandalf - Fritz some years ago, you asked yourself :
WHY IS HE SENDING US LOOSING GAMES GANDALF-FRITZ4.
I got phone calls from your workers, Frederic spoke with my boss, and
I was asked why I sent you faxes with games where Fritz4 loses
together with hints on EP-bug and BEST WISHES.

You have not learned much out of my gandalf games, because in jakarta
gandalf was very easily able to beat fritz again. The game between
fritz and gandalf in jakarta shows very good WHY fritz4 is not a
strong program.

Maybe you should better study if somebody sents you notations ,
although you think he is crazy.
It could be an advantage to LEARN out of a fact, instead of overseeing
it because the poster/sender is not a chess-base-fan.
I am not critisizing chessbase because I have something against you or
Mathias, as I have told him in aegon in detail. But I have to
critisize your WAY of working / doing it.
If journalism is misused to make money out of a position that is
reached by exploiding people, than I have to say something.

>What is your real name, Mr. McLane? You seem to venture some harsh
>opinions against us and I am a bit ticklish if that goes anonymous.
>On the other hand you show high expertise in computer chess so I
>appreciate the discussion with you.

I am not harsh against you. I am telling my opinion about a product I
have bought. Also I have sent my comments once to you, but I have made
the experience that you don't care much if somebody has critics.
If you call my critics harsh, please refer which phrase and I will
understand better.
I can tell my opinion anonymous or with my name.
If you want my adress , I will send it by email. I don't want to hide
because I am frightened.
But this is a virtual media. I use a virtual name.

>Yours respectfully, Matthias Wuellenweber

We could discuss about the rumor that is spread (I am not the source,
just one of the guys that have heard about from others) that Fritz3 or
Fritz4 have the BT positions programmed to have better results.
It is said they have not only implemented the BT-positions but also
the invers-BT-positions. If that is true, it would be betraying the
people.
Can you give us an dimenti ?!

[mclane]

Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>>
>> wrid...@leland.stanford.edu (wridgway) wrote:
>>
>> >The 9/96 SSDS rating list shows Fritz 4.0 about 40 rating points below
>> >Fritz 3.0, so does another rating list posted here recently. Is this well
>> >known or do people find this surprising? Isn't it unusual to sell a
>> >product which has declined in strength from the previous version?
>> > Also, Extreme Chess is said to be "based" on Fritz 4.01...Is it also
>> >possibly weaker than Fritz 3.0, or is 4.01 an improvement?
>> > Finally, Genius, Rebel and Hiarcs are all much higher rated on these
>> >lists than Fritz, even though Fritz has had some great press (beating GK,
>> >etc). Do people here agree they are much stronger programs?
>>
>>
>> Fritz and co have a better-lieing lobby.
>> E.g. Fredric Friedel, Gary Kasparov and the rest (not to forget the
>> nice CHess-Base-Company) try very hard to suggest or manipulate the
>> public-image the way that anybody should believe:
>>
>> Fritz is the strongest program of the world.
>>
>> It isn't . And you kow. I know. And many other experts.
>> But there are many others that find out much later, after they had
>> spent 199,- DM into the product.

>> And many others never find out.
>>

>> So all in all it is better to make PR-work and lie instead of making
>> no money and be honest!
>> Thats their materialistic point of view. And it works. It is called
>> capitalism.

>Thorsten, if you had any money, the lawyers would be having a field
>day :)

I have said nothing that cannot be proved.

In the latest COMPUTERSCHACH and SPIELE = CSS 6 / 96 there was an
article about Genius5.
On page 30 you see 2 screen-shots. One from Genius5 and the other from
Fritz4. It is mentioned by the author that Genius5 copied this feature
from Fritz4.

This is said in the text under the PICTURE of the left screen-shot.

This is done in the public !!

The author of the article is named as Peter Schreiner.

I have asked Peter about the page, he said that NOT HE, BUT THE
PUBLISHER OF THE CSS HAS PUT THIS PART INTO HIS ARTICLE WITHOUT ASKING
HIM, NOR TELLING THE READER THAT THIS OPINION IS NOT AN OPINION OF
THE AUTHOR.

In other words: the commercially related publishers of CSS have not
only censored or manipulated with desinformation, they are THAT FREE
that they publish articles of authors, cut them like they want, and
INSERT their own ideas without any mark or label: stuff of the
publishers.

What can you expect from people that do these things and call it
journalism ? The idea was, to suggest the reader that GENIUS has
copied this feature from Fritz.

When I remember it right, OSSI WEINER created AND realized such a
TRAINER or LEARNER-function into the chess-computers like Mephisto
III, IV and V and and long before Friedel or Steinwender or Morsch or
Wuellenweber thought of it in a fritz - program.
When somebody has copied the Coach-function from sobebody, than fritz
from Mephisto-chess-computers.

BTW: The 2 screen shot look really very alike, but if STEINWENDER is
the author of this passage, he should subscribe under the shots and
not give the impression that another person said this.

You see, and I am sure, lawyers will be interested in those FACTS too.
And we have many of them, you only have to read the whole magazine to
show the desinformation-campaign.

[Chris Whittington]

Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH) wrote:
>
> > You mean, since 1986 ChessBase nor Fritz was able to play
> > in the rules of chess !!
>
> No, sorry you misunderstood me, it is just an error in the CBF-format
> which has (had) to be compensated by some special checking in the
> interface.
>

> > Unbelievable. Fritz3 is stronger than Fritz4.01 (ssdf-list!)
> > Fritz3 is stronger because it has one rule less to follow.
> > That says that the EP-knowledges reduces the chess-strength.
> > You should throw out any knowledge and Fritz is a master.
>
> No, Fritz3 didn't have an EP-bug in the published version, Fritz4.00 had.
> Fritz4.01 hadn't. I am sorry if you haven't got the newer engine yet.
> Please download it from www.chessbase.com
>

EP bugs confirmed.

We, here, along with many others no doubt, reverse engineered the
ChessBase database format a long time ago.

The ChessBase programmers made a bug in move list generation (I forget
exactly what it was, something to do with pawns moving off the side
of the board, or ep or something like that), which mean that the
move list often had false moves and an incorrect move count. The move
count was important for move indexing.

What this meant was that anybody wanting to write a program to
read/write ChessBase files had to include this false move generator
and then parse the results to correct it. (Reverse engineeering
to render one program's data compatible with another is expressly
*allowed* under European law, contrary to attempts by monopolists
to prevent it).

So ChessBase has always had this bug contained in it. Except that
they got round it by parsing later. The bug has to stay, since
'correcting' it would mean that all previous ChessBase data
would become unreadable.

The other, different bug, comes from Fritz's play engine
which mishandled the en passent rule. This is fixed by some
patch somewhere or other.

So there are two different bugs. I hope nobody need ever confuse
them again :)

Chris Whittington

[mclane]

Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH) wrote:
>>
[...]

>> > Unbelievable. Fritz3 is stronger than Fritz4.01 (ssdf-list!)
>> > Fritz3 is stronger because it has one rule less to follow.
>> > That says that the EP-knowledges reduces the chess-strength.
>> > You should throw out any knowledge and Fritz is a master.
>>
>> No, Fritz3 didn't have an EP-bug in the published version, Fritz4.00 had.
>> Fritz4.01 hadn't. I am sorry if you haven't got the newer engine yet.
>> Please download it from www.chessbase.com
>>

>EP bugs confirmed.

>We, here, along with many others no doubt, reverse engineered the
>ChessBase database format a long time ago.

>The ChessBase programmers made a bug in move list generation (I forget
>exactly what it was, something to do with pawns moving off the side
>of the board, or ep or something like that), which mean that the
>move list often had false moves and an incorrect move count. The move
>count was important for move indexing.

>What this meant was that anybody wanting to write a program to
>read/write ChessBase files had to include this false move generator
>and then parse the results to correct it. (Reverse engineeering
>to render one program's data compatible with another is expressly
>*allowed* under European law, contrary to attempts by monopolists
>to prevent it).

"CONTRARY TO ATTEMPTS BY MONOPOLISTS" Nice statement!

[ChessBase GmbH]

Dear Mr. McLane,

> I have made the experience that you don't care much if somebody has critics.

Sorry if we didn't react to what you sent us. I don't recall having seen
the Gandalf games. My attitude to such writings is: This guy has taken a
real effort in his spare time to define a problem with one of our
products or to make suggestions for improvements. That makes me feel
grateful. If people just hosiannah our stuff it might be more enjoyable
in the first moment but it doesn't stimulate thinking very much.

About the BT-positions. I don't think Frans Morsch or any other
programmer would do such a thing. Aren't there many other testing sets
where contradictory results would immediately show? As far as I recall,
Fritz fails some of the BT-positions completely and solves others
extremely fast. There was one position where Fritz displays the correct
move for 14 minutes and then discards it in the last minute. Couldn't you
just easily discover such cheating by removing redundant pawns or
creating analogous tactical motives?

I still didn't get the point why you don't give me your real name. The
Internet is a real medium for me and I have the understanding that I
communicate with real people who stand openly by their opinions.

Matthias

[ChessBase GmbH]

We simply bribed him as usual. It is a real strain on the ChessBase
budget. All these tournament- and speed-chess wins and draws against
strong grandmasters. It costs us thousands and thousands and thousands of
dollars. Think alone about the 49 games Fritz3 and Fritz4 played under
FIDE tournament conditions in the last two years. To obtain a performance
of 2508 really has brought us to the brink of bankrupcy.

Matthias

[pit...@aol.com]

Im Artikel <E2FAw...@news.prima.ruhr.de>, mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
wrote:

Hi, this is Peter

This statement of Torsten is in all details CORRECT !!!!!!!!!

But Thorsten, what is with the selected letters of some readers published
by them ? Look to the letter of this guy Mr. Joerg Teumer. He plays a
little tournament with the following participants : 1.) Fritz 4.01 2.)
Rebel 7 3.) CM5000 4.) Genius 4 and 5.) MChess Pro 5 ! Time level was 30
Sec / move .

The final result was :

1.) Fritz 4.01 5,5 p
2.) Rebel 7 5,5 p
3.) CM5000 4,0 p
4.) Genius 4 3,5 p
5.) MCP5 1,5 p

Okay, a short tournament just for fun and we all know [ I hope so ....;-))
], that the result is WITHOUT value !!!! But then we read in CSS the
following statement of Mr. Teumer :

* Fritz 4.01 .....strong ............ a lot of ideas
......................impressive *

Point taken ...........?

After only ten ( !!!! ) games with short time controls this guy discovers
the following :

* MChess Pro 5.0 was ...............disappointment
...............................we couldn`t understand, that MChess Pro was
for such a long time the leader of the SSDF ..............ashamed
presentation ...............

In fact the uninformed reader understand the message : FRITZ 4.01 is
...............one of the better programs and MChess Pro is bullshit
!!!!!!!!! Nice manipulation :-(( If you have your own magazine +
commercial interests and you didn`t like someone or something, then we
learned :

PRINT SELECTED LETTERS OR MANIPULATE THE ARTICLES OF THE WRITERS !!!

But what can we do ? The situation is so, that MR. Friedel ist not only
one of the chief editors of CSS. He also is one of the owners of ChessBase
and has a lot of commercial interests, for example to Fritz 4.01. So it`s
clear, that they only publish this NONSENSE ! I `ve never seen any
negative reactions to Fritz ............
The same game with NIMZO 3 ! Mr. Steinwender, the other chiefeditor of
CSS, has the exclusive distribution rights for Nimzo 3 here in Germany !
What happens ? In every issue we read informations, how fascinating this
genious programm is ............

One another example : in the magazine ROCHADE EUROPA 12 / 96 you `ll find
a review of Guenther Rehburg about Nimzo3, MChess 6, Chess Genius 3.5,
Rebel 8 and the CM5000. He played a short tournament [ not under
tournament conditions : only 30 Minutes for a game ] on two 486 / 66 with
8 MB RAM. The winner was Nimzo 3 [ accident ] before MChess 6 and Rehburg
tried some manipulation :

* NIMZO3 .......better than the SSDF - Rating ..........and a lot of more
NONSENSE. He detected some very special knowledge in Nimzo3 for the saftey
of the King and proved this with the following position :

Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989

White : Ke4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,
a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5

But now : Rehburg informed the reader, that ONLY Nimzo3 understand this
position and it`s the first and only program ..............ZITAT : * Als
Chrilly Donningers Nimzo3 den richtigen Loesungszug Kh3 zog, da schlug
selbst das Herz des Testautoren hoeher ...*
WUERG ....AETZ ..... [ Kommentar Peter !!!! :-))
*Fuer den Ersteller des Testprogramms ist die ERSTMALIGE Loesung schon ein
Erlebnis der besonderen Art. Donninger muss seinen Koenigen ein erhoehtes
Sicherheitsbeduerfnis verliehen haben * ( ALLES LUEGE .........)

The point is, that this was NOT the TRUE : Kh3 is also detected by Genius
3.5 ( very fast !!!! ), Genius 3, Fritz 3, Fritz 4.01, Genius 2 and
naturally by MCP6. So his demonstration is without worth and what do you
think, MCLANE or TORSTEN ? You know, that Rehburg is working for the CSS (
staendiger Mitarbeiter ) ! Could it be, that there is some favourism
?????? Why is he lieing ?

Rehburg gives another interesting comments about Rebel 8 [ Attention ED !
;-) ] * MONTAGSPRODUKTION * in English * Monday production *
Unbelievable!!! Who is Rehburg, where is his competition ?

So what is the solution for serious testwork ? There is only one way : We
must found our own newspaper .........but it`s a lot of work and must be
done by a lot of persons .......not only by two ......;-)

So I `ll never publish again any articles in the CSS - Magazine
......................It is useless :-((

-Peter

PS : One point must be clear : I`ve NOTHING against NIMZO3 ( well done
Chrilly !!!!!!! ) or FRITZ 3 + 4 ( well done ChessBase !!!! ). But there
`s naturally a lot of respect for ALL the programers and their fantastic
work ! LONG LIVE MCHESS, REBEL, GENIUS, HIARCS, CHESSTAL, THE KING
..................................Thanks !

[Ed Schröder]

From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)

: I have said nothing that cannot be proved.

: In the latest COMPUTERSCHACH and SPIELE = CSS 6 / 96 there was an
: article about Genius5.
: On page 30 you see 2 screen-shots. One from Genius5 and the other from
: Fritz4. It is mentioned by the author that Genius5 copied this feature
: from Fritz4.

: This is said in the text under the PICTURE of the left screen-shot.

: This is done in the public !!

: The author of the article is named as Peter Schreiner.

: I have asked Peter about the page, he said that NOT HE, BUT THE
: PUBLISHER OF THE CSS HAS PUT THIS PART INTO HIS ARTICLE WITHOUT ASKING
: HIM, NOR TELLING THE READER THAT THIS OPINION IS NOT AN OPINION OF
: THE AUTHOR.

: In other words: the commercially related publishers of CSS have not
: only censored or manipulated with desinformation, they are THAT FREE
: that they publish articles of authors, cut them like they want, and
: INSERT their own ideas without any mark or label: stuff of the
: publishers.

: What can you expect from people that do these things and call it

: journalism ? The idea was, to suggest the reader that GENIUS has
: copied this feature from Fritz.

True, there is no copyright on chess features... :)
At least not that I know.

: When I remember it right, OSSI WEINER created AND realized such a

: TRAINER or LEARNER-function into the chess-computers like Mephisto
: III, IV and V and and long before Friedel or Steinwender or Morsch or
: Wuellenweber thought of it in a fritz - program.
: When somebody has copied the Coach-function from sobebody, than fritz
: from Mephisto-chess-computers.

Thorsten is right.
If I remember well I programmed the coach function already in MM4 and MM5.
And probably it was already present in the famous Mephisto 3.

: BTW: The 2 screen shot look really very alike, but if STEINWENDER is

: the author of this passage, he should subscribe under the shots and
: not give the impression that another person said this.

I disliked the CSS presentation too.

- Ed -

: You see, and I am sure, lawyers will be interested in those FACTS too.

[Ed Schröder]

From: pit...@aol.com

: Rehburg gives another interesting comments about Rebel 8
: [ Attention ED ! ;-) ]

I am all ears!

: * MONTAGSPRODUKTION * in English * Monday production *

Oh boy...

: Unbelievable!!! Who is Rehburg, where is his competition ?

I met Gunther Rehburg in Munich 1993 at the micro WCC.
He is a nice guy and I had many friendly talks with him.

I don't know why he calls Rebel8 a "MONTAGSPRODUKTION".

Perhaps because Rebel8 was really released on a monday? :)

But seriously, I prefer to see my program called a "MONTAGSPRODUKTION"
(nobody takes that for real) above a compare with a competitor and
playing games on 0:02, actually saying the competitor is better.

Hopefully you feel a little better now.

: So what is the solution for serious testwork ? There is only one way:

: We must found our own newspaper .........but it`s a lot of work and
: must be done by a lot of persons .......not only by two ......;-)

Yeah, the more competition the better.
Hope you succeed.

: So I `ll never publish again any articles in the CSS - Magazine
: ......................It is useless :-((

Or better, *INSIST* you will not be censorized in any way.

And thanks for writing the letter to Mr. Koehler of "Rochade" defending
my program and others. I hope he will publish your letter.

- Ed -

: -Peter

[Komputer Korner]

Chris Whittington wrote:
>
snipped

> So ChessBase has always had this bug contained in it. Except that
> they got round it by parsing later. The bug has to stay, since
> 'correcting' it would mean that all previous ChessBase data
> would become unreadable.
>
> The other, different bug, comes from Fritz's play engine
> which mishandled the en passent rule. This is fixed by some
> patch somewhere or other.
>
> So there are two different bugs. I hope nobody need ever confuse
> them again :)
>
> Chris Whittington

Chris,
Does this mean that Fritz 4.01 still has the .cbf bug? BTW,I understand
that CB 6 will have a completely different format.
--
Komputer Korner

The komputer that kouldn't keep a password safe from
prying eyes, kouldn't kompute the square root of 36^n,
kouldn't find the real motive in ChessBase and missed
the real learning feature of Nimzo.

[mclane]

pit...@aol.com wrote:

>Im Artikel <E2FAw...@news.prima.ruhr.de>, mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
>wrote:

>>Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> wrid...@leland.stanford.edu (wridgway) wrote:
>>>>

Chris wrote:
>>>Thorsten, if you had any money, the lawyers would be having a field
>>>day :)
>>

Mclane wrote:
>>I have said nothing that cannot be proved.
>>
>>In the latest COMPUTERSCHACH and SPIELE = CSS 6 / 96 there was an article
>>about Genius5. On page 30 you see 2 screen-shots. One from Genius5 and the
>>other from Fritz4. It is mentioned by the author that Genius5 copied this
>>feature
>>from Fritz4. This is said in the text under the PICTURE of the left
>>screen-shot.

>>This is done in the public !!

>>The author of the article is named as Peter Schreiner.

>>I have asked Peter about the page, he said that NOT HE, BUT THE PUBLISHER
>>OF THE CSS HAS PUT THIS PART INTO HIS ARTICLE WITHOUT ASKING HIM, NOR
>TELLING THE READER THAT THIS OPINION IS NOT AN OPINION OF THE AUTHOR.

>>In other words: the commercially related publishers of CSS have not only
>>censored or manipulated with desinformation, they are THAT FREE that they
>>publish articles of authors, cut them like they want, and INSERT their
>>own ideas without any mark or label: stuff of the
>>publishers.>

Anybody reading the above should be RECOGNIZE what they do and will
maybe change now his opinion about the publishers.

>Hi, this is Peter

>This statement of Torsten is in all details CORRECT !!!!!!!!!

>But Thorsten, what is with the selected letters of some readers published
>by them ? Look to the letter of this guy Mr. Joerg Teumer. He plays a
>little tournament with the following participants :

>1.) Fritz 4.01
>2.) Rebel 7
>3.) CM5000
>4.) Genius 4 and
>5.) MChess Pro 5 !

>Time level was 30
>Sec / move .

>The final result was :

>1.) Fritz 4.01 5,5 p
>2.) Rebel 7 5,5 p
>3.) CM5000 4,0 p
>4.) Genius 4 3,5 p
>5.) MCP5 1,5 p

>Okay, a short tournament just for fun and we all know [ I hope so ....;-))
>], that the result is WITHOUT value !!!! But then we read in CSS the
>following statement of Mr. Teumer :

>* Fritz 4.01 .....strong ............ a lot of ideas
>......................impressive *

>Point taken ...........?

Yes , they have ever MISUSED this kind of reader-letters.
They do not comment stupid-reader letters (although Steinwender and
Friedel are experts) , they publish stupid letters alwys when the
letter fits and stresses Friedels/Steinwenders intererests. That is a
very job of doing manipulation. Only printing reader-letters that
underline my interests.

>After only ten ( !!!! ) games with short time controls this guy discovers
>the following :

>* MChess Pro 5.0 was ...............disappointment
>...............................we couldn`t understand, that MChess Pro was
>for such a long time the leader of the SSDF ..............ashamed
>presentation ...............

>In fact the uninformed reader understand the message : FRITZ 4.01 is
>...............one of the better programs and MChess Pro is bullshit
>!!!!!!!!! Nice manipulation :-(( If you have your own magazine +
>commercial interests and you didn`t like someone or something, then we
>learned :

I have always told anybody that the DESINFORM and MANIPULATE!
It is very easy to show there MANIPULATIONS !

>PRINT SELECTED LETTERS OR MANIPULATE THE ARTICLES OF THE WRITERS !!!

>But what can we do ?

This is a public forum. We can INFORM all readers about the CHEATING
they do. If somebody believes us is another point.

As BRUCE said: the best thing against lies is a good repuation.

But Friedel has a good reputation under people NOT knowing him much.
But all insiders know better. They know HOW he does his job.

Steinwender is much more difficult because Steinwender is more liked
because he is always diplomatic. But - as I have always told THOSE who
told me: Friedel is the clever guy of the duo. Steinwender is
harmless...
Steinwender is much cleverer than Friedel. Because Friedel is very
idle, he cannot hide his intrigues very long. He cannot fool insiders.

Steinwender did a long time, was able to hide his manipulations behind
nice and polite small-talks and harmless behaviour. But this was just
a method of him, not his true character/behaviour.
He is not that arrogant like Friedel.
That makes it more difficult to convince. But since he needs to make
money for his pension, he

>The situation is so, that MR. Friedel ist not only
>one of the chief editors of CSS. He also is one of the owners of ChessBase
>and has a lot of commercial interests, for example to Fritz 4.01. So it`s
>clear, that they only publish this NONSENSE ! I `ve never seen any
>negative reactions to Fritz ............

I have never seen Frederic apologize or saying he has made a mistake,
therefor he is more a god or a pope.

>The same game with NIMZO 3 ! Mr. Steinwender, the other chiefeditor of
>CSS, has the exclusive distribution rights for Nimzo 3 here in Germany !
>What happens ? In every issue we read informations, how fascinating this
>genious programm is ............

Exactly. He was the one saying that NIMZO is a strategist!
A one ply-strategist.

>One another example : in the magazine ROCHADE EUROPA 12 / 96 you `ll find
>a review of Guenther Rehburg about Nimzo3, MChess 6, Chess Genius 3.5,
>Rebel 8 and the CM5000. He played a short tournament [ not under
>tournament conditions : only 30 Minutes for a game ] on two 486 / 66 with
>8 MB RAM. The winner was Nimzo 3 [ accident ] before MChess 6 and Rehburg
>tried some manipulation :

>* NIMZO3 .......better than the SSDF - Rating ..........and a lot of more
>NONSENSE. He detected some very special knowledge in Nimzo3 for the saftey
>of the King and proved this with the following position :

>Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989

>White : Ke4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,
>a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5

>But now : Rehburg informed the reader, that ONLY Nimzo3 understand this
>position and it`s the first and only program ..............ZITAT :

>* Als
>Chrilly Donningers Nimzo3 den richtigen Loesungszug Kh3 zog, da schlug
>selbst das Herz des Testautoren hoeher ...*

Translation of Rehburgs statement: When Chrilly Donningers Nimzo3 made
the right Keymove Kh3, my heart strikes faster...

>WUERG ....AETZ ..... [ Kommentar Peter !!!! :-))
>*Fuer den Ersteller des Testprogramms ist die ERSTMALIGE Loesung schon ein
>Erlebnis der besonderen Art. Donninger muss seinen Koenigen ein erhoehtes
>Sicherheitsbeduerfnis verliehen haben * ( ALLES LUEGE .........)

Translation of Rehburgs statement:
For the creator of the test-suite is the finding of the soloution
for the first time an event of the special way/kind.

>The point is, that this was NOT the TRUE : Kh3 is also detected by Genius
>3.5 ( very fast !!!! ), Genius 3, Fritz 3, Fritz 4.01, Genius 2 and
>naturally by MCP6. So his demonstration is without worth and what do you
>think, MCLANE or TORSTEN ?

Mclane!
You are right again.

>You know, that Rehburg is working for the CSS (
>staendiger Mitarbeiter ) ! Could it be, that there is some favourism
>?????? Why is he lieing ?

Guenter is maybe not consciously lieing, maybe he is betraying
himself. As you and I know, he is 2 generations older than us.
He could be our grandpa and has some problems with technic and
computers at all.
But - as many others - he can be misued for purposes of those who know
better, like FF or DS.

>Rehburg gives another interesting comments about Rebel 8 [ Attention ED !
>;-) ] * MONTAGSPRODUKTION * in English * Monday production *
>Unbelievable!!! Who is Rehburg, where is his competition ?

Yes. That is really insane! Rebel8 is a good product.

>So what is the solution for serious testwork ? There is only one way : We
>must found our own newspaper .........but it`s a lot of work and must be
>done by a lot of persons .......not only by two ......;-)

We WILL found our own newspaper. Who wants to share us.
Please mail to me or to Pit...@aol.com.

We want a magazine without censorship, without liars, without
INTEREST-CONFLICTS.
We want to review about any program, also the amateurs.
We want to join COMPUTERCHESS without fooling the reader or USING them
for making business. We want to make a magazin that is pluralistic and
democratic. That is OURS and not to make some publishers rich or
finance some flights and holiday of some ICCA-presidents.

Who wants to share ?!

>So I `ll never publish again any articles in the CSS - Magazine
>......................It is useless :-((

So in the end, experience has let you come to the same DECISION I have
made one year or 2 years before. After a while an insider cannot write
anymore for this magazine. Because it is an instrument for making
money, not a fanzine of computerchess.

>-Peter

>PS : One point must be clear : I`ve NOTHING against NIMZO3 ( well done
>Chrilly !!!!!!! ) or FRITZ 3 + 4 ( well done ChessBase !!!! ). But there
>`s naturally a lot of respect for ALL the programers and their fantastic
>work ! LONG LIVE MCHESS, REBEL, GENIUS, HIARCS, CHESSTAL, THE KING
>..................................Thanks !

I agree.

[Chris Whittington]

> .......................impressive *

>
> Point taken ...........?
>
> After only ten ( !!!! ) games with short time controls this guy discovers
> the following :
>
> * MChess Pro 5.0 was ...............disappointment

> ................................we couldn`t understand, that MChess Pro was

> for such a long time the leader of the SSDF ..............ashamed
> presentation ...............
>
> In fact the uninformed reader understand the message : FRITZ 4.01 is

> ................one of the better programs and MChess Pro is bullshit

The magazine already exists.

You already write for it.

So do many others.

Its up to date.

No censorship.

Its fast to deliver (mostly).

Its spontaneous.

There's a full range of opinion.

You get instant right of reply.

I write of course about rec.games.chess.computer

These commercial magazines and fanzines that are really no more
than marketing devices are on the way out.
Its very useful if you have a shop or a mail-order business
or a product competing with others to be able to control the
main media channel.

Chessbase/Fritz and Computer Schach und Spiele
Chess Magazine and the Chess and Bridge Centre
Selective Search and Contempory Computers.
Maybe ICD and CCR, but I'm not very knowledgable about this.
No doubt there are others.

Some are are more blatantly biased than others.
Maybe some are scrupulously honest and fair.

If they want they can do any of the following, and some do:

Censor what goes in.
Write biased in favour of the stuff they sell, and against
the stuff they don't.
Aadvertise their own products, or products they support or
make a good margin on.
Have little vendettas against certain people/products.
Up to now they've been able to do what they want, say what they
want, and no one has right of reply.

But times have changed.

I remember eagerly awaiting my copies of CSS and other fanzines.
They used to give me the only information that was available.

But now, they've ceased to be very interesting. I always knew
they were biased, and it was necessary to read round that, but,
thanks to r.g.c.c. and others, I already know what they tell me,
several months before.

They don't, and never have, contain *anything* earth-shattering.
No fascinating insights, no special knowledge. r.g.c.c. is orders
of magnitude better (if you can filter out the noise).

So post your reviews here, Peter. Why send them to CSS ?

Chris Whittington

>
> So I `ll never publish again any articles in the CSS - Magazine

> .......................It is useless :-((

>
> -Peter
>
> PS : One point must be clear : I`ve NOTHING against NIMZO3 ( well done
> Chrilly !!!!!!! ) or FRITZ 3 + 4 ( well done ChessBase !!!! ). But there
> `s naturally a lot of respect for ALL the programers and their fantastic
> work ! LONG LIVE MCHESS, REBEL, GENIUS, HIARCS, CHESSTAL, THE KING

> ...................................Thanks !
>

[brucemo]

mclane wrote:

> >Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989
>
> >White : Ke4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,
> >a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5

It's hard to figure out who Thorsten is quoting in his original
post.

Does anyone have the correct position for this? In the above,
there are two pieces on e4. Perhaps it should be on g4, in order
to go to h3, but maybe it could be on h4.

A note to people who post positions: check them twice please, as
otherwise it is incredibly easy to make a mistake.

bruce

[mclane]

brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:

>mclane wrote:

>> >Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989
>>
>> >White : Ke4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,
>> >a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5

>It's hard to figure out who Thorsten is quoting in his original
>post.

It was P E T E R posting this position. No Andreas Mader, I am not
Peter, and not Rolf T.

The King has to be put on g 4 Bruce!
The knight on e4 is correct.

>Does anyone have the correct position for this? In the above,
>there are two pieces on e4. Perhaps it should be on g4, in order
>to go to h3, but maybe it could be on h4.

K g4

>A note to people who post positions: check them twice please, as
>otherwise it is incredibly easy to make a mistake.

Right.
>bruce

Peter: CHECK THEM TWICE !

[mclane]

"Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)

>: I have said nothing that cannot be proved.

>: In other words: the commercially related publishers of CSS have not

>: only censored or manipulated with desinformation, they are THAT FREE
>: that they publish articles of authors, cut them like they want, and
>: INSERT their own ideas without any mark or label: stuff of the
>: publishers.

>: What can you expect from people that do these things and call it

>: journalism ? The idea was, to suggest the reader that GENIUS has
>: copied this feature from Fritz.

>True, there is no copyright on chess features... :)

>At least not that I know.

Right.

>: When I remember it right, OSSI WEINER created AND realized such a

>: TRAINER or LEARNER-function into the chess-computers like Mephisto
>: III, IV and V and and long before Friedel or Steinwender or Morsch or
>: Wuellenweber thought of it in a fritz - program.
>: When somebody has copied the Coach-function from sobebody, than fritz
>: from Mephisto-chess-computers.

>Thorsten is right.

>If I remember well I programmed the coach function already in MM4 and MM5.
>And probably it was already present in the famous Mephisto 3.

Yes Ed, it was in Mephisto III. Maybe really Ossi or Helmut Weigel or
whoever had the idea of implementing this very very nice feature,
compared to the age: 1983 or 1984.

>: BTW: The 2 screen shot look really very alike, but if STEINWENDER is

>: the author of this passage, he should subscribe under the shots and
>: not give the impression that another person said this.

>I disliked the CSS presentation too.

>- Ed -

Thanks Ed.
Although this is all internal german stuff, it is also important for
all other chess-freaks all arround in the world, because Dieter
Steinwender and Frederic Friedel and Chess Base are well known arround
the world and it should be know what they do - do anybody in the
world, not only to the german-language-spoken areas.

I think we have guys with the same SPIRIT of "we can do what we want"
in the ICCA.

So it is important to all. Because we have connections from Friedel to
Levy , from Levy to van den Herik, from van den Herik to Louwmann,
also from Friedel to ChessBAse, from ChessBase to big distributors
like Schach Niggemann, and and and.

It should know to anybody that these business connections have
influence on the public opinion when these people use media for
publishing their VISIONS.

>: You see, and I am sure, lawyers will be interested in those FACTS too.

[mclane]

Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>The magazine already exists.

>You already write for it.

>So do many others.

>Its up to date.

>No censorship.

>Its fast to deliver (mostly).

>Its spontaneous.

>There's a full range of opinion.

>You get instant right of reply.

>I write of course about rec.games.chess.computer

>These commercial magazines and fanzines that are really no more
>than marketing devices are on the way out.
>Its very useful if you have a shop or a mail-order business
>or a product competing with others to be able to control the
>main media channel.

Yes - control is everything for them. They need to control because
they have to make money or have to feel better when the have power
because they need this, without it nobody would recognize them...

>Chessbase/Fritz and Computer Schach und Spiele
>Chess Magazine and the Chess and Bridge Centre
>Selective Search and Contempory Computers.
>Maybe ICD and CCR, but I'm not very knowledgable about this.
>No doubt there are others.

>Some are are more blatantly biased than others.
>Maybe some are scrupulously honest and fair.

>If they want they can do any of the following, and some do:

>Censor what goes in.
>Write biased in favour of the stuff they sell, and against
>the stuff they don't.
>Aadvertise their own products, or products they support or
>make a good margin on.
>Have little vendettas against certain people/products.
>Up to now they've been able to do what they want, say what they
>want, and no one has right of reply.

Up to now!! Thats right.

>But times have changed.

For sure. Next century is coming!

>I remember eagerly awaiting my copies of CSS and other fanzines.
>They used to give me the only information that was available.

>But now, they've ceased to be very interesting. I always knew
>they were biased, and it was necessary to read round that, but,
>thanks to r.g.c.c. and others, I already know what they tell me,
>several months before.

Right.

>They don't, and never have, contain *anything* earth-shattering.
>No fascinating insights, no special knowledge. r.g.c.c. is orders
>of magnitude better (if you can filter out the noise).

>So post your reviews here, Peter. Why send them to CSS ?

>Chris Whittington

A good question. PETER. Tell us about the dark and bloody reasons why
you worked with these mafia !

>>
>> So I `ll never publish again any articles in the CSS - Magazine
>> .......................It is useless :-((
>>

Good idea! I have come to the same conclusion years ago.

>> -Peter
>>
>> PS : One point must be clear : I`ve NOTHING against NIMZO3 ( well done
>> Chrilly !!!!!!! ) or FRITZ 3 + 4 ( well done ChessBase !!!! ). But there
>> `s naturally a lot of respect for ALL the programers and their fantastic
>> work ! LONG LIVE MCHESS, REBEL, GENIUS, HIARCS, CHESSTAL, THE KING
>> ...................................Thanks !
>>

Live long and prosper all my chess programs and programmers.

[mclane]

"Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>From: pit...@aol.com

>: Rehburg gives another interesting comments about Rebel 8
>: [ Attention ED ! ;-) ]

>I am all ears!

>: * MONTAGSPRODUKTION * in English * Monday production *

>Oh boy...

>: Unbelievable!!! Who is Rehburg, where is his competition ?

>I met Gunther Rehburg in Munich 1993 at the micro WCC.
>He is a nice guy and I had many friendly talks with him.

Of course he is a nice guy. But that is not helping that his articles
are always somehow vague.

>I don't know why he calls Rebel8 a "MONTAGSPRODUKTION".

>Perhaps because Rebel8 was really released on a monday? :)

>But seriously, I prefer to see my program called a "MONTAGSPRODUKTION"
>(nobody takes that for real) above a compare with a competitor and
>playing games on 0:02, actually saying the competitor is better.

>Hopefully you feel a little better now.

>: So what is the solution for serious testwork ? There is only one way:

>: We must found our own newspaper .........but it`s a lot of work and
>: must be done by a lot of persons .......not only by two ......;-)

>Yeah, the more competition the better.
>Hope you succeed.

Thanks Ed.

>: So I `ll never publish again any articles in the CSS - Magazine
>: ......................It is useless :-((

>Or better, *INSIST* you will not be censorized in any way.

That will not help. They have no rules (like ICCA) and do what they
want, because they think they have the POWER and know anything.
From this point of view they want to rule the world...of
computerchess...

[Churak]

In article <E2K54...@news.prima.ruhr.de>,
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:

>We want a magazine without censorship, without liars, without
>INTEREST-CONFLICTS.
>We want to review about any program, also the amateurs.
>We want to join COMPUTERCHESS without fooling the reader or USING them
>for making business. We want to make a magazin that is pluralistic and
>democratic. That is OURS and not to make some publishers rich or
>finance some flights and holiday of some ICCA-presidents.

Reminds me of the "Statement of Principles" scene from "Citizen Kane", and we
all remember what happened later. <G>

-- Steve Lopez

=============================================
lummra khatunikh churak himrukkal gual.
lummra dlanmukoi hiweshma tahen gual.
lum surimtokoi gual.
lum brufenul tsulajun muni.
tusmriremra dlanmukoi lakun ssiya!
=============================================

[Stefan Meyer-Kahlen]

On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 10:11:00 -0800, brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com>
wrote:

>mclane wrote:
>
>> >Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989
>>
>> >White : Ke4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,
>> >a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5
>

>It's hard to figure out who Thorsten is quoting in his original
>post.
>

>Does anyone have the correct position for this? In the above,
>there are two pieces on e4. Perhaps it should be on g4, in order
>to go to h3, but maybe it could be on h4.
>

>A note to people who post positions: check them twice please, as
>otherwise it is incredibly easy to make a mistake.
>

>bruce

The position is:
8/3p1k2/3Bp2p/1q2p2p/p3N1K1/2R2PP1/8/8 w - - bm Kh3

I don't think that this position is particularly difficult for today's
programs, so I also don't see why it is such a big deal that NIMZO
solves this one.

Stefan

[brucemo]

mclane wrote:

> >* NIMZO3 .......better than the SSDF - Rating ..........and a lot of more
> >NONSENSE. He detected some very special knowledge in Nimzo3 for the saftey
> >of the King and proved this with the following position :
>
> >Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989
>
> >White : Ke4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,
> >a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5

> Translation of Rehburgs statement:

> For the creator of the test-suite is the finding of the soloution
> for the first time an event of the special way/kind.
>
> >The point is, that this was NOT the TRUE : Kh3 is also detected by Genius
> >3.5 ( very fast !!!! ), Genius 3, Fritz 3, Fritz 4.01, Genius 2 and
> >naturally by MCP6. So his demonstration is without worth and what do you
> >think, MCLANE or TORSTEN ?

Assuming the white king is on g4, mine finds Kh3 in 11 minutes on a P6/200. I
don't have anything "special" in mine, it's a very simple search, so programs
with more king stuff might find it faster.

I think this position may be a case where if you don't take the pawn you are
in an island of -1.5 in a sea of -2.0, or whatever. It's tough, but certainly
not unsolvable.

bruce

[Chris Whittington]

Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> Chris Whittington wrote:
> >
> snipped
> > So ChessBase has always had this bug contained in it. Except that
> > they got round it by parsing later. The bug has to stay, since
> > 'correcting' it would mean that all previous ChessBase data
> > would become unreadable.
> >
> > The other, different bug, comes from Fritz's play engine
> > which mishandled the en passent rule. This is fixed by some
> > patch somewhere or other.
> >
> > So there are two different bugs. I hope nobody need ever confuse
> > them again :)
> >
> > Chris Whittington
>
> Chris,
> Does this mean that Fritz 4.01 still has the .cbf bug?

Well, it depends whether you can really call it a bug now.
Certainly it was sloppy programming when they first did the
database code. But, now, the only way to read/write a chessbase file
is by applying this faulty move generator to get the move index.

So I wouldn't call it a bug, just an unfortunate inefficiency. In
any case it is totally transparent to the user, so it makes
no real difference.

If they are going for a different format, they'll need to make sure
that the old chessbase format is still readable.

Probably users of old chessbase will *not* be able to read the
new files; at least not without paying over some money to get
a converter :(

But, maybe, the CB programmers have been very clever and
all will be both upwards and downwards compatible.

Chris Whittington

[mclane]

bays...@intrepid.net (Churak) wrote:

>In article <E2K54...@news.prima.ruhr.de>,
> mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:

>>We want a magazine without censorship, without liars, without
>>INTEREST-CONFLICTS.
>>We want to review about any program, also the amateurs.
>>We want to join COMPUTERCHESS without fooling the reader or USING them
>>for making business. We want to make a magazin that is pluralistic and
>>democratic. That is OURS and not to make some publishers rich or
>>finance some flights and holiday of some ICCA-presidents.

>Reminds me of the "Statement of Principles" scene from "Citizen Kane", and we

>all remember what happened later. <G>

Citizen Kane is a very good-movie. I like it, and it is really a big
classic-movie.

I don't remeber what happened, but I am sure that this is not much
important. We do computerchess for so many years without being
corrupt, why should we change our behaviours ?!

Maybe not anything has to end like Citizen Kane.
BTW: what happened, shall I review the movie again, I have it on
video...
or do you tell me Steve ?!

>-- Steve Lopez

Thanks.

[Komputer Korner]

pit...@aol.com wrote:
>
snipped
snipped
> >>>
> >>>

A couple of points: Gambitsoft also based in Germany sells Nimzo. I
doubt
that Bert Seifriz has to buy 2nd hand. I am sure he must get Nimzo
directly
from Chrilly. 2nd point. I fell in love with Nimzo because of the
features.
I am still testing and will write a definitive review on Nimzo. Maybe it
will turn out that the root evaluation is just too much of a handicap,
but for now I can't believe how good the features are. Strength isn't
everything.

[Harald Faber]

Hello mclane,

I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:

m> Fritz and co have a better-lieing lobby.
m> E.g. Fredric Friedel, Gary Kasparov and the rest (not to forget the
m> nice CHess-Base-Company) try very hard to suggest or manipulate the
m> public-image the way that anybody should believe:
m>
m> Fritz is the strongest program of the world.
m>
m> It isn't . And you kow. I know. And many other experts.
m> But there are many others that find out much later, after they had
m> spent 199,- DM into the product.
m> And many others never find out.

Recently a german dealer wrote me, almost every customer was very satisfed
with all te features and graohics and whatever. Believe it or not.
Many people don't like programs like MCP and Hiarcs3 because of their
using and graphics, that's fact.

m> NONO. Buy Rebel8 to have a good positional playing opponent. You will
m> see nice pawn-queques and active play. Rebel8 is the strongest
m> program, in the moment. it plays nice human-chess.
m> Or buy Mchess6 or Hiarcs5.
m> They also play nice chess .

That's right. :)

[Enrique Irazoqui]

mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote

> Maybe not anything has to end like Citizen Kane.

I wonder.

> BTW: what happened,

ROSEBUD

Nothing much to do with chess, though.

Enrique

[pit...@aol.com]

Im Artikel <32B6E2...@nwlink.com>, brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:

>> >Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989
>>
>> >White : Ke4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,
>> >a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5
>

>It's hard to figure out who Thorsten is quoting in his original
>post.
>
>Does anyone have the correct position for this? In the above,
>there are two pieces on e4. Perhaps it should be on g4, in order
>to go to h3, but maybe it could be on h4.
>

Hi Bruce,

White King on g4 !

White : Kg4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6, f3, g3
Black : Kf7, Qb5, a4, d7, e6, e5, h6, h5

>A note to people who post positions: check them twice please, as
>otherwise it is incredibly easy to make a mistake.

You `re right, Bruce. Thank you !

-Peter

[Churak]

In article <E2MvB...@news.prima.ruhr.de>,

mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>BTW: what happened, shall I review the movie again, I have it on
>video...
>or do you tell me Steve ?!
>

It's too involved to summarize succinctly. The main point is that when Kane
composes his "Declaration of Principles", his friend (played by Joseph Cotten)
asks if he can keep the original handwritten copy. Years later, after Kane
severely compromises those principles, Cotten's character mails the
"Declaration of Principles" back to Kane -- along with his severance
check, torn to bits.

Anyone who felt the need to post the comment that this was off-topic needs to
go find a dictionary and look up the word "analogy".

-- Steve Lopez

[pit...@aol.com]

Im Artikel <593vvg$2...@news.xs4all.nl>, "Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl>
schreibt:

>: Rehburg gives another interesting comments about Rebel 8
>: [ Attention ED ! ;-) ]
>
>I am all ears!
>
>: * MONTAGSPRODUKTION * in English * Monday production *
>
>Oh boy...
>
>: Unbelievable!!! Who is Rehburg, where is his competition ?
>
>I met Gunther Rehburg in Munich 1993 at the micro WCC.
>He is a nice guy and I had many friendly talks with him.
>

Yes I know, he`s at first so friendly ...........But why is he swindling ?
Mr. Rehburg, we `re waiting for your explanation !!!!

>I don't know why he calls Rebel8 a "MONTAGSPRODUKTION".
>
>Perhaps because Rebel8 was really released on a monday? :)
>
>But seriously, I prefer to see my program called a "MONTAGSPRODUKTION"
>(nobody takes that for real) above a compare with a competitor and
>playing games on 0:02, actually saying the competitor is better.
>
>Hopefully you feel a little better now.
>

NO NO NO !!!!! What is with all this uninformed readers in the Rochade
Europa ? They didn`t have this special knowledge about computerchess,
mostly they didn`have any access to the RGCC !!!

Rehburg suggest them, that NIMZO3 has more special knowledge than all the
other programms ! Look to his testposition and you can see, that he`s
cheating all uninformed readers. We must protect them ......;-)

>: So what is the solution for serious testwork ? There is only one way:
>: We must found our own newspaper .........but it`s a lot of work and
>: must be done by a lot of persons .......not only by two ......;-)
>
>Yeah, the more competition the better.
>Hope you succeed.
>

>: So I `ll never publish again any articles in the CSS - Magazine
>: ......................It is useless :-((
>
>Or better, *INSIST* you will not be censorized in any way.
>

>And thanks for writing the letter to Mr. Koehler of "Rochade" defending
>my program and others. I hope he will publish your letter.
>

I`m not shure about that ! He`s careful :-(

>- Ed -
>
>
>: -Peter
>
>

[pit...@aol.com]

Im Artikel <85082596...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>, Chris Whittington
<chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> schreibt:

>The magazine already exists.
>You already write for it.
>So do many others.
>Its up to date.
>No censorship.
>Its fast to deliver (mostly).
>Its spontaneous.
>There's a full range of opinion.
>You get instant right of reply.
>I write of course about rec.games.chess.computer
>

Okay, I agree ;-)

I agree again ....:-))))

[pit...@aol.com]

Im Artikel <E2K54...@news.prima.ruhr.de>, mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
wrote:

>pit...@aol.com wrote:

>
>>Im Artikel <E2FAw...@news.prima.ruhr.de>, mcl...@prima.ruhr.de
(mclane)
>>wrote:
>
>>>Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> wrid...@leland.stanford.edu (wridgway) wrote:
>>>>>
>
>
>Chris wrote:
>>>>Thorsten, if you had any money, the lawyers would be having a field
>>>>day :)
>>>
>

>Mclane wrote:
>>>I have said nothing that cannot be proved.
>>>

>>>In the latest COMPUTERSCHACH and SPIELE = CSS 6 / 96 there was an
article
>>>about Genius5. On page 30 you see 2 screen-shots. One from Genius5 and
the
>>>other from Fritz4. It is mentioned by the author that Genius5 copied
this
>>>feature
>>>from Fritz4. This is said in the text under the PICTURE of the left
>>>screen-shot.
>
>>>This is done in the public !!
>
>>>The author of the article is named as Peter Schreiner.
>
>>>I have asked Peter about the page, he said that NOT HE, BUT THE
PUBLISHER
>>>OF THE CSS HAS PUT THIS PART INTO HIS ARTICLE WITHOUT ASKING HIM, NOR
>>TELLING THE READER THAT THIS OPINION IS NOT AN OPINION OF THE AUTHOR.
>

>>>In other words: the commercially related publishers of CSS have not
only
>>>censored or manipulated with desinformation, they are THAT FREE that
they
>>>publish articles of authors, cut them like they want, and INSERT their
>>>own ideas without any mark or label: stuff of the
>>>publishers.>
>

>Anybody reading the above should be RECOGNIZE what they do and will

>maybe change now his opinion about the publishers.

>
>
>
>
>>Hi, this is Peter
>
>>This statement of Torsten is in all details CORRECT !!!!!!!!!
>
>
>>But Thorsten, what is with the selected letters of some readers
published
>>by them ? Look to the letter of this guy Mr. Joerg Teumer. He plays a
>>little tournament with the following participants :
>
>>1.) Fritz 4.01
>>2.) Rebel 7
>>3.) CM5000
>>4.) Genius 4 and
>>5.) MChess Pro 5 !
>
>>Time level was 30
>>Sec / move .
>
>>The final result was :
>
>>1.) Fritz 4.01 5,5 p
>>2.) Rebel 7 5,5 p
>>3.) CM5000 4,0 p
>>4.) Genius 4 3,5 p
>>5.) MCP5 1,5 p
>
>>Okay, a short tournament just for fun and we all know [ I hope so
....;-))
>>], that the result is WITHOUT value !!!! But then we read in CSS the
>>following statement of Mr. Teumer :
>
>>* Fritz 4.01 .....strong ............ a lot of ideas

>>......................impressive *
>
>>Point taken ...........?
>
>
>Yes , they have ever MISUSED this kind of reader-letters.
>They do not comment stupid-reader letters (although Steinwender and
>Friedel are experts) , they publish stupid letters alwys when the
>letter fits and stresses Friedels/Steinwenders intererests. That is a
>very job of doing manipulation. Only printing reader-letters that
>underline my interests.
>

The question is : Is Mr. Teumer really an existing person, perhaps he`s
virtual ............???????? ;-))))))

>>After only ten ( !!!! ) games with short time controls this guy
discovers
>>the following :
>
>>* MChess Pro 5.0 was ...............disappointment
>>...............................we couldn`t understand, that MChess Pro
was
>>for such a long time the leader of the SSDF ..............ashamed
>>presentation ...............
>
>>In fact the uninformed reader understand the message : FRITZ 4.01 is
>>...............one of the better programs and MChess Pro is bullshit
>>!!!!!!!!! Nice manipulation :-(( If you have your own magazine +
>>commercial interests and you didn`t like someone or something, then we
>>learned :
>

>I have always told anybody that the DESINFORM and MANIPULATE!
>It is very easy to show there MANIPULATIONS !
>
>

>>PRINT SELECTED LETTERS OR MANIPULATE THE ARTICLES OF THE WRITERS !!!
>
>>But what can we do ?
>

>This is a public forum. We can INFORM all readers about the CHEATING
>they do. If somebody believes us is another point.
>
>As BRUCE said: the best thing against lies is a good repuation.
>
>But Friedel has a good reputation under people NOT knowing him much.
>But all insiders know better. They know HOW he does his job.
>
>Steinwender is much more difficult because Steinwender is more liked
>because he is always diplomatic. But - as I have always told THOSE who
>told me: Friedel is the clever guy of the duo. Steinwender is
>harmless...
>Steinwender is much cleverer than Friedel. Because Friedel is very
>idle, he cannot hide his intrigues very long. He cannot fool insiders.
>
>Steinwender did a long time, was able to hide his manipulations behind
>nice and polite small-talks and harmless behaviour. But this was just
>a method of him, not his true character/behaviour.
>He is not that arrogant like Friedel.
>That makes it more difficult to convince. But since he needs to make
>money for his pension, he
>

>>The situation is so, that MR. Friedel ist not only
>>one of the chief editors of CSS. He also is one of the owners of
ChessBase
>>and has a lot of commercial interests, for example to Fritz 4.01. So
it`s
>>clear, that they only publish this NONSENSE ! I `ve never seen any
>>negative reactions to Fritz ............
>

>I have never seen Frederic apologize or saying he has made a mistake,
>therefor he is more a god or a pope.
>

Okay Thorsten, uhps sorry, McLane ....;-)

the most important question for me is : What are their motives for
damaging the reputation of MChess Pro ? Any idea ?

>
>>The same game with NIMZO 3 ! Mr. Steinwender, the other chiefeditor of
>>CSS, has the exclusive distribution rights for Nimzo 3 here in Germany !
>>What happens ? In every issue we read informations, how fascinating this
>>genious programm is ............
>

>Exactly. He was the one saying that NIMZO is a strategist!
>A one ply-strategist.
>

>>One another example : in the magazine ROCHADE EUROPA 12 / 96 you `ll
find
>>a review of Guenther Rehburg about Nimzo3, MChess 6, Chess Genius 3.5,
>>Rebel 8 and the CM5000. He played a short tournament [ not under
>>tournament conditions : only 30 Minutes for a game ] on two 486 / 66
with
>>8 MB RAM. The winner was Nimzo 3 [ accident ] before MChess 6 and
Rehburg
>>tried some manipulation :
>

>>* NIMZO3 .......better than the SSDF - Rating ..........and a lot of
more
>>NONSENSE. He detected some very special knowledge in Nimzo3 for the
saftey
>>of the King and proved this with the following position :
>

>>Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989
>
>>White : Ke4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,
>>a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5
>

>>But now : Rehburg informed the reader, that ONLY Nimzo3 understand this
>>position and it`s the first and only program ..............ZITAT :
>
>>* Als
>>Chrilly Donningers Nimzo3 den richtigen Loesungszug Kh3 zog, da schlug
>>selbst das Herz des Testautoren hoeher ...*
>

>Translation of Rehburgs statement: When Chrilly Donningers Nimzo3 made
>the right Keymove Kh3, my heart strikes faster...
>

>>WUERG ....AETZ ..... [ Kommentar Peter !!!! :-))
>>*Fuer den Ersteller des Testprogramms ist die ERSTMALIGE Loesung schon
ein
>>Erlebnis der besonderen Art. Donninger muss seinen Koenigen ein
erhoehtes
>>Sicherheitsbeduerfnis verliehen haben * ( ALLES LUEGE .........)

>Translation of Rehburgs statement:
>For the creator of the test-suite is the finding of the soloution
>for the first time an event of the special way/kind.
>
>>The point is, that this was NOT the TRUE : Kh3 is also detected by
Genius
>>3.5 ( very fast !!!! ), Genius 3, Fritz 3, Fritz 4.01, Genius 2 and
>>naturally by MCP6. So his demonstration is without worth and what do you
>>think, MCLANE or TORSTEN ?
>

>Mclane!
>You are right again.
>

>>You know, that Rehburg is working for the CSS (
>>staendiger Mitarbeiter ) ! Could it be, that there is some favourism
>>?????? Why is he lieing ?
>

>Guenter is maybe not consciously lieing, maybe he is betraying
>himself. As you and I know, he is 2 generations older than us.
>He could be our grandpa and has some problems with technic and
>computers at all.
>But - as many others - he can be misued for purposes of those who know
>better, like FF or DS.
>

Sorry Thorsten, but I don`t think so ! This is NONSENSE ......It was
possible for him, to examine this position with Nimzo3 ! In his testsuite
he also used Genius 3.5 and MCP6 ! Why didn`t he test this position with
Genius 3.5 and MCP6 ?

For me it isn`t important, how old somebody is ! The question is : what is
he doing ? Is his work serious and precise ? Why is he a manipulating ?
When your grandpa told you, that the earth is flat and not round
..............

Attention Bruce, the white King is on g4 ....sorry :-)

>
>>Rehburg gives another interesting comments about Rebel 8 [ Attention ED
!

>>;-) ] * MONTAGSPRODUKTION * in English * Monday production *

>>Unbelievable!!! Who is Rehburg, where is his competition ?
>

>Yes. That is really insane! Rebel8 is a good product.
>

>>So what is the solution for serious testwork ? There is only one way :
We
>>must found our own newspaper .........but it`s a lot of work and must be
>>done by a lot of persons .......not only by two ......;-)
>

>We WILL found our own newspaper. Who wants to share us.
>Please mail to me or to Pit...@aol.com.
>

>We want a magazine without censorship, without liars, without
>INTEREST-CONFLICTS.
>We want to review about any program, also the amateurs.
>We want to join COMPUTERCHESS without fooling the reader or USING them
>for making business. We want to make a magazin that is pluralistic and
>democratic. That is OURS and not to make some publishers rich or
>finance some flights and holiday of some ICCA-presidents.
>

>Who wants to share ?!
>

>>So I `ll never publish again any articles in the CSS - Magazine
>>......................It is useless :-((
>

>So in the end, experience has let you come to the same DECISION I have
>made one year or 2 years before. After a while an insider cannot write
>anymore for this magazine. Because it is an instrument for making
>money, not a fanzine of computerchess.
>

>>-Peter
>
>>PS : One point must be clear : I`ve NOTHING against NIMZO3 ( well done
>>Chrilly !!!!!!! ) or FRITZ 3 + 4 ( well done ChessBase !!!! ). But
there
>>`s naturally a lot of respect for ALL the programers and their fantastic
>>work ! LONG LIVE MCHESS, REBEL, GENIUS, HIARCS, CHESSTAL, THE KING

>>..................................Thanks !
>
>I agree.

>
>>>What can you expect from people that do these things and call it
>>>journalism ? The idea was, to suggest the reader that GENIUS has
>>>copied this feature from Fritz.
>>>

>>>When I remember it right, OSSI WEINER created AND realized such a
>>>TRAINER or LEARNER-function into the chess-computers like Mephisto
>>>III, IV and V and and long before Friedel or Steinwender or Morsch or
>>>Wuellenweber thought of it in a fritz - program.
>>>When somebody has copied the Coach-function from sobebody, than fritz
>>>from Mephisto-chess-computers.
>>>

>>>BTW: The 2 screen shot look really very alike, but if STEINWENDER is
>>>the author of this passage, he should subscribe under the shots and
>>>not give the impression that another person said this.
>>>

>>>You see, and I am sure, lawyers will be interested in those FACTS too.
>>>And we have many of them, you only have to read the whole magazine to
>>>show the desinformation-campaign.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>>Chris Whittington
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > I am at master level strength and can generally beat computers
>>rated
>>>>> >about 2500 on ICC, etc, and sometimes higher rated ones...I am
>>looking
>>>for
>>>>> >a new computer program which will challenge me and would like
>>people's
>>>>> >advice on these rating lists re: which is the strongest program. I
>>was
>>>>> >about to get Extreme chess to start, until i saw the rating lists.
>>>>> > Thanks! e-mail welcome.
>>>>>

>>>>> NONO. Buy Rebel8 to have a good positional playing opponent. You
will

>>>>> see nice pawn-queques and active play. Rebel8 is the strongest

>>>>> program, in the moment. it plays nice human-chess.

>>>>> Or buy Mchess6 or Hiarcs5.

[graham_douglass]

In article <85082596...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>, Chris says...
{snip}

There is one drawback - there's no way to refer back to an old review.

I don't think the new system is quite perfect yet.

[Tord Kallqvist Romstad]

GrahamDouglass wrote:
: There is one drawback - there's no way to refer back to an old review.

There is! It is surprising how many people still haven't discovered
dejanews (http://www.dejanews.com).

Tord

: I don't think the new system is quite perfect yet.

[Harald Faber]

Hello mclane,

I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:

m> >ES> I personally do not believe Fritz4 is weaker than Fritz3.
m> >ES> Just a feeling...
m>
m> >Depends on the configuration of Fritz3. ;-)
m>
m> Depends on the configuration of Fritz4.01. Try Fritz4,.01 with 32MB
m> hash and you will see unbelievable things happen.

You really expect better/stronger play? I do not believe that with a time
control of about 3min/move it makes a difference if Fritz4.01 plays with
32MB or with 16MB hash.
I mean I can forward this aspect because the colleague has 48MB RAM so it
wouldn't be a problem to run Fritz4.01 with 32MB hash under Win3.11 ...

What I also don't know if it makes a big difference playing with or
without permanent brain with the namend time control. By email it is
absolutely senseless to post the used time so that the permanent brain
could start for this time because neither Fritz nor Rebel i.e. store the
clock standings. :-O
And some programs in opposite to Genius don't start thinking with p.b.
when the game is loaded, they use it late after entering a move.
It is even impossible to use 2h/40moves with Fritz4, he uses from move 30
or so more than 10min/move because he thinks he has left 2 hours for the
rest 10 moves so he can calculate much longer for the next move.
Strange is that MChessPro uses much more time when he comes out of book
than all the other programs so that he often has time problems that begin
at move 33 i.e.
So maybe games played via email (OFFLINE!) are worthless but for some
people, like me, it is the only possibility when not having 2 pc's and an
autoplayer...

m> Of course ChessBase does not know about - they don't have the
m> capacities and the money to buy 64 MB ( I don't have that money
m> too...)

Right, they even have no money to spend for testing Fritz4 ... :-)))

m> >Still testing Fritz4.01 (486/133 16MB Hash) against Genius3 (P75 31MB
m> >Hash) in 10 games with 3min/move. Of course this is not important for
m> >statistics but for me thhis is more than enough to see what's going on.

m> With 16 MB it could be stronger, with 32MB even more. But with 8MB or
m> less, iFritz4.01 is definetly weaker than Fritz3 with /x mode.
Don't forget the FFTs! ;-)
And a well prepared opening-book-preference! ;-)

I never saw Fritz4 playing with 8MB so I can not conclude that with 16MB
he plays stronger.

[mclane]

pit...@aol.com wrote:

>Im Artikel <E2K54...@news.prima.ruhr.de>, mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
>wrote:

>The question is : Is Mr. Teumer really an existing person, perhaps he`s
>virtual ............???????? ;-))))))

They get so many letters, they can cheat by selecting the letters that
fit into their concept. They don't have to create their own letter.
Although they could. Thats right.

>the most important question for me is : What are their motives for
>damaging the reputation of MChess Pro ? Any idea ?

Mchess is / was the strongest program. It was a danger to Genius and
Fritz. So they have to do something against Mchess. What is the
easiest: let some guys you can use write some stuff against Mchess,
spread some lies, do business deals behind the scene to stop
mchess-distribution.
Ed will have the same problem in next time. But maybe Ed is smart
enough to stand. I hope !!! I really hope he will not end like Marty.

Have you ever been blackmailed heavily by them, ED ?!
We will see. Time sorts between mud and gold.

>Sorry Thorsten, but I don`t think so ! This is NONSENSE ......It was
>possible for him, to examine this position with Nimzo3 ! In his testsuite
>he also used Genius 3.5 and MCP6 ! Why didn`t he test this position with
>Genius 3.5 and MCP6 ?

>For me it isn`t important, how old somebody is ! The question is : what is
>he doing ? Is his work serious and precise ? Why is he a manipulating ?
>When your grandpa told you, that the earth is flat and not round
>..............

Have you ever seen the people that tell you about the weather ?!
Normally they do not only show you how the weather will be, they also
put some redundant stuff arround it.
Günter is like these people. His only problem is:
He puts redundant stuff arround .... NOTHING .
So in the end you know the prices, where to sell the product, his
redundant stuff, and nothing about the programs.

I remember there was a guy called Bernd Schneider in the
Computer-Schach & Spiele. He did the same. No - even he was better.
Why do you think he always names the distributors ?
Because otherwise he would not get the products for free from the
distributors.

Why is he manipulating. I think he is only idle.
In munich he asked me, if I could take a photo of him between the new
champions RICHARD LANG and MARK UNIACKE.
So I shot the picture. I wonder that he did not ask them for an
autogramm/signed piece of paper. Maybe he collects this and has a big
wall in his house where all wishes from Friedel, Richard and and and
are hanging.
I remember I had some almost identically behaviour when I was 13 and
put posters out of the BRAVO onto my wall: The Bay City Rollers,
Smokie and the Rubbettes, Nena (not to forget) and and and.
Maybe he is collecting other stuff and puts it on his wall.
Whatever. I don't care. I remember munich when Friedel, Steinwender,
Rehburg and others and me were sitting arround a table. Of course I
attacked Friedel and Günter was always kicking me under the table.
I think his idea was: How can you attack GODS like Friedel.... stop
it.

[graham_douglass]

In article <59bu4p$f...@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, tor...@ifi.uio.no says...

>
>GrahamDouglass wrote:
>: There is one drawback - there's no way to refer back to an old review.
>
>There is! It is surprising how many people still haven't discovered
>dejanews (http://www.dejanews.com).

I've bookmarked it - I'll look at it when I've got time.

Thanks for the pointer.

[ChessBase GmbH]

> But, maybe, the CB programmers have been very clever and
> all will be both upwards and downwards compatible.

No, we weren't clever. Only the new program CB6.0 reads both CBF and CBH
format. The old programs can't. In 1988 nobody dreamed about what all
would be necessary in a data format eight years later.

Matthias

[mclane]

Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH) wrote:

>Dear Mr. McLane,

>> I have made the experience that you don't care much if somebody has critics.

>Sorry if we didn't react to what you sent us. I don't recall having seen
>the Gandalf games. My attitude to such writings is: This guy has taken a
>real effort in his spare time to define a problem with one of our
>products or to make suggestions for improvements. That makes me feel
>grateful. If people just hosiannah our stuff it might be more enjoyable
>in the first moment but it doesn't stimulate thinking very much.

You are absolutely right.

>About the BT-positions. I don't think Frans Morsch or any other
>programmer would do such a thing. Aren't there many other testing sets
>where contradictory results would immediately show? As far as I recall,
>Fritz fails some of the BT-positions completely and solves others
>extremely fast. There was one position where Fritz displays the correct
>move for 14 minutes and then discards it in the last minute. Couldn't you
>just easily discover such cheating by removing redundant pawns or
>creating analogous tactical motives?

Right !! I have not spread these rumors out, but I was told that it
was proved by removing redundant pieces, as you have mentioned.
I was also told that not only the bt2630 was PROGRAMMED but also the
inverted BT2630.

I really can't believe that. Because it would be a big, a really heavy
betraying, if somebody would do this.
I will contact the informant again and ask for examples.

>I still didn't get the point why you don't give me your real name. The
>Internet is a real medium for me and I have the understanding that I
>communicate with real people who stand openly by their opinions.

I will tell you what happened today at my work.
The post-man came into the shop, with a package.
It was NOT for me, but for the company I work in.
I have never seen this guy in his big-yellow van, giving me a package
with stupid advertising-folders of another company.

I wrote my signature to give a receipt for it and said the usual, what
I always tell them:
The signature means R S T X Y Z if you cannot read it accurate.

He laughed and said to me:
I know who you are, you are
GHJKILL RSTXYZ, and gave my precise forename although I haven't
signed with it.

He laughed when he saw my surprised face and said:
You were a writer for the XYZ-magazine, weren't you.

Before I was able to say anything, he run out of the shop, climbed
into his yellow-van and drove away. Only the hell knows why or how he
identified me, because the writers normally are not shown with a
PICTURE.

So : that is exactly ONE reason I don't like to be named.
I don't want to be known in this way it happened today.
Ok - it was funny because I was surprised.
But when I discuss with people, I want to stay on the same level they
stay.

In den Haag, Bronstein should play on the platform where the VIP's or
strongest players play. He took his board and went downstairs to the
NORMAL players.

He said: I am the same like they are!!

I don't want to quote / retell this because I want to be seen as
famous as Bronstein. I would never relate myself with such a
marvellous player and model.
But the spirit that speaks out of his action is the same spirit I have
in mind.

I would like to see the world-chess-champion behave the same, to make
chess more famous, but I think Gary is not such a big-chess-player
like bronstein is or botvinnik was.

>Matthias
I am standing openly behind my opinions, the same as you do.
But I don't want to be known as GHJKILL RSTXYZ.

Can you follow or do I have to give more examples.

I have seen that you gave also a comment to Goran and was surprised
that you are back!
(ed mentioned something that you refuse because of critice [or my
critics]).
I am positively surprised that you don't refuse and support your
product and help the people with problems concerning ChessBase.

THAT IS THE SPIRIT WE NEED. Arrogance and resign, hiding and
money-making is, what we don't need here.

I know that you thought your database as a public-domain or shareware
or for-free-club for all chess-players, until you met Frederic and he
told you about the idea of making it commercial.

I am the opinion that you are not the typical type of sales-man, only
interested in launching/releasing and advertising and making money.

But you are in bad company ! If that is the reason why you are
critisized, you should consider about going a different way.

If somebody is always in company or is using and working with people
that have different values, he will be put/thrown together in one
drawer with them.

BTW:

If I were you, I would send Goran not only best wishes and a merry
christmas, I would send him

CD's of Fritz4 and also some PS-2-RAMs to upgrade some of the testers
machines.

We have found out - what is a very trivial thing, but we tell it again
- that Fritz4 (as a fast-program) profits much from having 16 or 32
MB-Hash entries instead of having 1, 4 or 8 MB.
So, if the swedish testers have only 8 MB machines, they get maybe 4MB
for hash and thats not enough in 40 / 120 games.

You could do Goran/Thoralf, Frans Morsch and yourself a good christmas
present by sending the ssdf-guys 2 or 3 Fritz4.01 CD's for free,
sending them 2-3 x 16 MB-PS2-Rams and ask them, if they were so kind
to test Fritz4.01 again. If our test-serial is no exception from the
rule, Fritz4.01 would increase it's rating with about 50-80
elo-points.

Thanks again, that you don't refuse to help the people here, and
dialogue with them. Thats good for my conscience (=Gewissen) and
if ChessBase continues by doing that, it will be very nice for your
image. And you could increase your-overall image, thats sure.

[mclane]

Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH) wrote:

>We simply bribed him as usual. It is a real strain on the ChessBase
>budget. All these tournament- and speed-chess wins and draws against
>strong grandmasters. It costs us thousands and thousands and thousands of
>dollars. Think alone about the 49 games Fritz3 and Fritz4 played under
>FIDE tournament conditions in the last two years. To obtain a performance
>of 2508 really has brought us to the brink of bankrupcy.

>Matthias
That is really funny to hear (and you can be sure: I knew it !!!) but
it does not help us here. I give you some excerpts out of an article
where I comment to this subject and maybe you look how easy some
programs had won the position, van der wiel made a draw as if he has
nothing to lose....

-------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way:
before the last round started, quest was the leading program with
4 points of 5 rounds.
All the other programs had 3,5 from 5.
So many kept the fingers crossed, that John van der Wiel, the routined
Grandmaster would smash away quest. In the end, quest would have 4 out
of 6
while the other programs could win, and overtake the - so far -
leader of the
programs.
But it came different. Van der Wiel and Quest made a strange draw.
Strange because the black playing Van der Wiel stood a little weaker
but with good chances if you imagine that he KNEW the opponent was NOT
a human but only a computer. In the position he reached everything was
prepaired for a king-attack. It was nice hidden, so that no computer
would
have been able to SEE it, because chess-programs have no eyes and
don't
think in geometric trajectories. If you mask your ideas, computers are
unable to see the point within their horizont.
It is said that Van der Wiel said that it would have been a dangerous
idea
to start an attack. I think this is not very true.
Only chess-players without any computer-experience could say such
stupid
things. I don't think that Van der Wiel is such an unknowing
computer-chess
greenhorn.
So why this draw ??
It was good for quests leading position, and it was good for a 2nd
rank of
Van der Wiel. So maybe it was a very pragmatical decision. Maybe Van
der
Wiel overestimated Quests strength. Maybe he was really frightened.
I don't know.
But what I know is, that it would have been easy for any normal
computer-
chess-expert to TRY to make an attack out of this nice position, the 2
top
leaders made draw, maybe the reader can try out himself. Here is the
game
until the draw was "arranged" !

What would Bronstein have said to this Grandmaster-draw:

[Event "AEGON Mankind vs Machines"]
[Site "The Hague NED"]
[Date "1996.04.17"]
[Round "6"]
[White "QUEST"]
[Black "John van der Wiel"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[BlackElo "2535"]
[BlackCountry "NED"]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 b6 5. Qg4 Bf8 6. Bg5 Qd7 7. h4 h6
8. Bf4 h5
9. Qf3 Ne7 10. g3 Nf5 11. O-O-O Nc6 12. Nge2 Ba6 13. Bh3 Nce7 14. Rhe1
g6 15.
Bg5 Bh6 16. Bxh6 Rxh6 17. Kb1 O-O-O 18. Nf4 Kb8 19. Bg2 Rhh8 20. Nce2
Rc8 21.
Nc1 Rhd8 22. Nfe2 c6 23. Nf4 Rc7 24. Nb3 Qc8 25. Nh3 Rf8 26. c3 Bb5
27. Rd2
Qa6 1/2-1/2
How to win with black ??
Please try the following experiment:
Take you computer, choose your strongest chess-program, or if not
available take a stupid program like Fritz4 (the more stupid the
program is, the easier it is to mate with black out of this position),
maybe with the new engine Fritz4.01.
And then try to be Van der Wiel (or better not!), but try to attack
whites
king.
To show you how this could happen, here a few examples how to do
against
Fritz4.01 from exactly the above position:

Hiarcs4 tried it the following way:

[Event "Aegon96"]
[Site "testgame"]
[Date "1996.04.26"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Fritz4.01"]
[Black "Hiarcs4"]
[Result "*"]

... 28.Ng5 c5 29.dxc5 bxc5 30.Nh7 Rfc8 31.Ka1 Ba4 32.Nc1 Bc6 33.Ng5 d4
34.Ne4 Rb7 35.Red1
Ba4 36.Rg1 Nd5 37.Rh1 dxc3 38.bxc3 c4 39.Ne2 Qb6 40.Bh3 Nde7 41.Rf1
Ka8
42.Qh1 Rcb8 43.Bg2 Bc6 44.Re1 a6 45.Red1 Ka7 46.Qf1 Nd5 47.Qg1 Ka8
Hiarcs4 started very well, but now it is unable to increase pressure.

You can try it the materialistic way by just eating and improving the
position
like ChessMaster 4000 would have done it (in my own styling):

[Event "Aegon96"]
[Site "testgame"]
[Date "1996.04.27"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Fritz4.01"]
[Black "Chessmaster4000"]
[Result "*"]

... 28.Ng5 c5 29.dxc5 bxc5 30.Nh7 Rfc8 31.Ka1 Ba4 32.Nc1 Bc6 33.Ng5 d4
34.Ne4 Rb7 35.Red1
Ba4 36.Rg1 Nd5 37.Rh1 dxc3 38.bxc3 c4 39.Ne2 Qb6 40.Bh3 Bc6 41.Rhd1
Nde7
42.Bg2 Ka8 43.Bh3 Rcb8 44.Qh1 Qa5 45.Bg2 Qxe5 46.Rd8 Nc8 *

[Event "Aegon96"]
[Site "testgame"]
[Date "1996.04.28"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Fritz4.01"]
[Black "Virtual-Chess WIN95"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C16"]

... 28. Ng5 Bc4 29. Nc1 c5 30. dxc5 bxc5 31. Nh3 Qa5
32. Rdd1 Rb7 33. b3 Qa3 34. Rd2 a5 35. Kc2 Ba6 36. Kd1 Rc8 37. Qf4 c4
38.
Rc2 Rbc7 39. Qd2 cxb3 40. Nxb3 a4 41. Nc1 d4 42. c4 Nd5 43. Rb2+ Ka7
44.
Bxd5 exd5 45. Qb4 Qf3+ 46. Ree2 Rb7 47. Ng5 Rxb4 48. Nxf3 Rbxc4 49.
Rbc2
Rc3 50. Rxc3 Rxc3 51. Ng1 Bxe2+ 52. Ngxe2 Rf3 53. Ke1 d3 54. Nc3 d2+
55.
Kxd2 Rxf2+ 56. Ke1 Rc2 57. N1e2 a3 0-1
also the french program Virtual-Chess for WIN95 has no problems to
find
a way through.

But, there are many ways to come to Rome, e.g. the Chess System
Tal-way:

[Event "Aegon96"]
[Site "testgame"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "6]
[White "Fritz4.01"]
[Black "CSTal"]
[Result "0-1"]

... 28. Ng5 c5 29. dxc5 bxc5 30. Nh7 Rfc8 31. Ka1 Bc4 32. Nc1 Rb7 33.
Ng5 Nc6 34. Qf4 d4 35. Ne4 Qa5 36. Nd6 dxc3 37. Nxb7 cxd2 38. Nxa5
dxe1=Q 39. Nxc6+ Rxc6 40. Bxc6 Nd4 41. Ba4 Bd5 42. Qe3 Ne2 43. Be8
Qxc1+
44.Qxc1 Nxc1 45. Bxf7 Kc7 46. Bxg6 Bf3 47. Kb1 Ne2 48. Bd3 Nd4 49. Kc1
Nc6
50. Bc4 Nxe5 51. Bxe6 Nd3+ 52. Kd2 Nxf2 53. Ke3 Bg4 54. Bxg4 Nxg4+ 55.
Kf4 c4
56. Kg5 Nf2 57. Kxh5 Nd3 58. g4 Nxb2 59. g5 Nd3 60. g6 Nf4+ 61. Kg4
Nxg6
62. Kf3 Nxh4+ 63. Ke3 Nf5+ 64. Kd2 Kb6 65. Kc2 Kc5 66. Kc3 Ne3 67. a3
a5
68. a4 Nd5+ 69. Kc2 Kb4 70. Kc1 Kb3 71. Kd2 c3+ 72. Kd1 Nf4 73. Kc1 c2

74. Kd2 Kb2 75. Ke3 c1=Q+ 0-1

How would you play ? And what do you think about this draw?

[mclane]

Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH) wrote:

>Dear Mr. McLane,

>> I have made the experience that you don't care much if somebody has critics.

>Sorry if we didn't react to what you sent us. I don't recall having seen
>the Gandalf games. My attitude to such writings is: This guy has taken a
>real effort in his spare time to define a problem with one of our
>products or to make suggestions for improvements. That makes me feel
>grateful. If people just hosiannah our stuff it might be more enjoyable
>in the first moment but it doesn't stimulate thinking very much.

BTW:

My boss was called in a personal telephone call by MR.Friedel because
I have sent these Gandalf-games to ChessBase using my booses
Fax-Machine from work!!

So Mr. Friedel DID recognize the games/faxes, but not for recognizing
the data, but because he was upset that he got these faxes.

I was therefore commanded to my boss, and we listened the call
together.

SO:
Mr-Friedel seems to have more influence or getting more DATA and seems
to have more control about ChessBase than YOU have ! Amazing, isn't it
???

Please don't see this above again as an attack. I just wanted to know
or to show that it is NOT ture that Mr.Friedel is NOT connected anyway
in a commercial-way to ChessBase.

If Mr.Friedel, who got the games too, would have looked more into the
DATA instead of beeing upset or directing ChessBase like a captain his
Titanic, he would have spared Fritz losing games against Gandalf at a
championship.

But that would have meant, he really understands anout WHAT is
important and what not.

Sorry, but in my opinon it would have been better not to ignore the
faxes and to win against Gandalf instead. This is what any sportsman
would have done, or any chess-player. To study information about
opponents who could be a danger or who could cost points in next
tournaments.

Mr. Friedel has made a personal-stuff out of it instead of USING this
information for further fixes of Fritz or Fritz-engine.

What a pity for you.

We will see how Fritz plays in next tournaments against Gandalf....

Will ChessBase learn out of errors ?!

[pit...@aol.com]

Im Artikel <E2sJ1...@news.prima.ruhr.de>, mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
schreibt:

>Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH) wrote:
>
>>Dear Mr. McLane,
>
>>> I have made the experience that you don't care much if somebody has
>critics.
>
>>Sorry if we didn't react to what you sent us. I don't recall having seen

>>the Gandalf games. My attitude to such writings is: This guy has taken a

>>real effort in his spare time to define a problem with one of our
>>products or to make suggestions for improvements. That makes me feel
>>grateful. If people just hosiannah our stuff it might be more enjoyable
>>in the first moment but it doesn't stimulate thinking very much.
>

>You are absolutely right. >

Thank you, Matthias ;-))) That `s the point !!!!!!!

>>About the BT-positions. I don't think Frans Morsch or any other
>>programmer would do such a thing. Aren't there many other testing sets
>>where contradictory results would immediately show? As far as I recall,
>>Fritz fails some of the BT-positions completely and solves others
>>extremely fast. There was one position where Fritz displays the correct
>>move for 14 minutes and then discards it in the last minute. Couldn't
you
>>just easily discover such cheating by removing redundant pawns or
>>creating analogous tactical motives?
>
>
>Right !! I have not spread these rumors out, but I was told that it
>was proved by removing redundant pieces, as you have mentioned.
>I was also told that not only the bt2630 was PROGRAMMED but also the
>inverted BT2630.
>
>I really can't believe that. Because it would be a big, a really heavy
>betraying, if somebody would do this.
>I will contact the informant again and ask for examples.>

Oh Thorsten, uphs sorry McLane ......;-)

Who is your mysterious informant ? What`s his name ? It`s not a serious
behaviour, working wth "virtual" persons or informants ..;-)

Bronstein is Bronstein, but who is McLane ?????????????? Often you `re
placing here harsh statements and comments ......;-) In my view it`s
better, to quote this with your real name.

>I would like to see the world-chess-champion behave the same, to make
>chess more famous, but I think Gary is not such a big-chess-player
>like bronstein is or botvinnik was.
>

Be careful, Thorsten ! Are you shure, that you have the qualification for
a solid certificate ......;-) My opinion is, that Gary is one of the
GREATEST players in history ! Perhaps he is unprincipled, because I
disliked his attacks against his old teacher Botvinnik :-(

>>Matthias
>I am standing openly behind my opinions, the same as you do.
>But I don't want to be known as GHJKILL RSTXYZ.
>

You didn`t stand OPENLY behind your opinions !!!!! Why didn`t you give us
your real name ? Your are Thorsten Czub, not McLane!

>Can you follow or do I have to give more examples.
>
>
>I have seen that you gave also a comment to Goran and was surprised
>that you are back!
>(ed mentioned something that you refuse because of critice [or my
>critics]).
>I am positively surprised that you don't refuse and support your
>product and help the people with problems concerning ChessBase.
>

I agree !!!!

>THAT IS THE SPIRIT WE NEED. Arrogance and resign, hiding and
>money-making is, what we don't need here.
>

I agree again ! ;-)

Thanks Matthias for holding out !!!!!!!!!

-Peter

[Tord Kallqvist Romstad]

mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: BTW:

: If I were you, I would send Goran not only best wishes and a merry
: christmas, I would send him

: CD's of Fritz4 and also some PS-2-RAMs to upgrade some of the testers
: machines.

: We have found out - what is a very trivial thing, but we tell it again
: - that Fritz4 (as a fast-program) profits much from having 16 or 32
: MB-Hash entries instead of having 1, 4 or 8 MB.
: So, if the swedish testers have only 8 MB machines, they get maybe 4MB
: for hash and thats not enough in 40 / 120 games.

: You could do Goran/Thoralf, Frans Morsch and yourself a good christmas
: present by sending the ssdf-guys 2 or 3 Fritz4.01 CD's for free,
: sending them 2-3 x 16 MB-PS2-Rams and ask them, if they were so kind
: to test Fritz4.01 again. If our test-serial is no exception from the
: rule, Fritz4.01 would increase it's rating with about 50-80
: elo-points.

There is a much cheaper solution: Give them an MS-DOS version of
Fritz 4! I hope that Fritz 5, like Genius 5, will be sold as a dual
MS-DOS/Windows version.

Tord

: Thanks again, that you don't refuse to help the people here, and

:

:

[ChessBase GmbH]

> Sorry, but in my opinon it would have been better not to ignore
> the faxes and to win against Gandalf instead.

Yes, next time please send it directly to me.

Matthias

[Harald Faber]

Hello Matthias,

I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:

CG> Harald, I remember you once wrote a detailed letter to us pointing one of
CG> these endgame CD problems out. This enabled us to solve most of the
CG> things.

Not only one... ;-)
So when you could solve the problems with my help, where is my provision?
;-)

CG> Playing from an endgame CD is a complex task. You cannot just say "Whats
CG> the best move" and play it, because the evaluation of positions in the
CG> database is sometimes "moves to mate", sometimes "moves to promotion" or
CG> "moves to losing a piece" and so on. So you have to catch dozens of
CG> special cases where the main engine has to override the endgame data

Really? I did believe that the endgame-CD-roms by Ken Thompson included
the right evaluation and number to mate. Am I wrong? YOu took some of his
databases, didn't you?

CG> base. I heard that the new TableBases always store the number of moves to
CG> mate. That should make it much easier. But I think we are now properly
CG> riding this tiger.

Seems so. ;-)
Are there any known problems running Fritz4 under Win3.1 (not 3.11!)
because I know 2 people who have problems that means one cannot start
analysis with CTRL-SPACE (what seems to be a problem with the engine, the
engine-field is always empty, that means he can choose between Fritz1.2,
3.1 and 4.01, but if he chooses, clicks HASHTABELLEN ANPASSEN, in the
fields for strategy, tactical engine etc doesn't appear the chosen engine,
very strange, maybe new installation helps), the other one cannot even
start the program...he will check it at X-mas (it is his x-mas-present)
and try with Win3.11 ...

CG> > It still has the bug that the engine size (at least the suggested size)
CG> > changes every time you go into the engine-menu...
CG>
CG> Thats intended behaviour: It shows the available physical RAM.

Ahh, it's not a bug, it's a feature... :-)

But it always changes between 2 numbers, one is a few hundreds or
thousands kb of hash, the other is in mb of hash... one for blitz and one
for tournament-play?

[Robert Hyatt]

Harald Faber (Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org) wrote:
: Hello mclane,

: I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:

: m> >ES> I personally do not believe Fritz4 is weaker than Fritz3.

: m> >ES> Just a feeling...
: m>
: m> >Depends on the configuration of Fritz3. ;-)
: m>
: m> Depends on the configuration of Fritz4.01. Try Fritz4,.01 with 32MB
: m> hash and you will see unbelievable things happen.

: You really expect better/stronger play? I do not believe that with a time
: control of about 3min/move it makes a difference if Fritz4.01 plays with
: 32MB or with 16MB hash.
: I mean I can forward this aspect because the colleague has 48MB RAM so it
: wouldn't be a problem to run Fritz4.01 with 32MB hash under Win3.11 ...

Doubling the hash is not going to make a big difference. maybe 10%-20%
at the very best, assuming the small size is just under some critical size
boundary and the larger size is over that boundary.

: What I also don't know if it makes a big difference playing with or

: without permanent brain with the namend time control. By email it is
: absolutely senseless to post the used time so that the permanent brain
: could start for this time because neither Fritz nor Rebel i.e. store the
: clock standings. :-O

Thinking on the opponent's time is worth at least 100 rating points I'd
suspect, in anything except maybe correspondence chess. Using the "idle"
time while waiting on the opponent lets the program average significantly
more time per move than the basic time control allows...

: And some programs in opposite to Genius don't start thinking with p.b.

: when the game is loaded, they use it late after entering a move.
: It is even impossible to use 2h/40moves with Fritz4, he uses from move 30
: or so more than 10min/move because he thinks he has left 2 hours for the
: rest 10 moves so he can calculate much longer for the next move.
: Strange is that MChessPro uses much more time when he comes out of book

: than all the other programs so that he often has time problems that begin
: at move 33 i.e.

Crafty is more like Mchess Pro as well... using more time up front, and
less time when the game has fewer pieces. It occasionally backfires, but
also lets it get a little more depth when things are "interesting..."

: So maybe games played via email (OFFLINE!) are worthless but for some

: people, like me, it is the only possibility when not having 2 pc's and an
: autoplayer...

: m> Of course ChessBase does not know about - they don't have the
: m> capacities and the money to buy 64 MB ( I don't have that money
: m> too...)

: Right, they even have no money to spend for testing Fritz4 ... :-)))

: m> >Still testing Fritz4.01 (486/133 16MB Hash) against Genius3 (P75 31MB
: m> >Hash) in 10 games with 3min/move. Of course this is not important for
: m> >statistics but for me thhis is more than enough to see what's going on.

: m> With 16 MB it could be stronger, with 32MB even more. But with 8MB or
: m> less, iFritz4.01 is definetly weaker than Fritz3 with /x mode.
: Don't forget the FFTs! ;-)
: And a well prepared opening-book-preference! ;-)

: I never saw Fritz4 playing with 8MB so I can not conclude that with 16MB
: he plays stronger.

: Ciao and see ya
: Harald
: --

[mclane]

hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>Harald Faber (Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org) wrote:
>: Hello mclane,

>: I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:

>: m> >ES> I personally do not believe Fritz4 is weaker than Fritz3.
>: m> >ES> Just a feeling...
>: m>
>: m> >Depends on the configuration of Fritz3. ;-)
>: m>
>: m> Depends on the configuration of Fritz4.01. Try Fritz4,.01 with 32MB
>: m> hash and you will see unbelievable things happen.

>: You really expect better/stronger play? I do not believe that with a time
>: control of about 3min/move it makes a difference if Fritz4.01 plays with
>: 32MB or with 16MB hash.
>: I mean I can forward this aspect because the colleague has 48MB RAM so it
>: wouldn't be a problem to run Fritz4.01 with 32MB hash under Win3.11 ...

>Doubling the hash is not going to make a big difference. maybe 10%-20%
>at the very best, assuming the small size is just under some critical size
>boundary and the larger size is over that boundary.

This was my idea too. Before somebody told me to try it out myself !!
I was sceptically myself. So I have never tried out.
But then I put the Ram's into my machine, gave Fritz4.01 more than
16MB and suddenly... it played really stronger. No joke. I would be
the last person from who you exspect telling about
playing-strength-increases of Fritz4.01.

But let us consider that Fritz4.01 is computing many positions per
second, that it is a very extreme program concerning TREE-management,
and that somebody using 8 MB RAM is not getting much Hash because he
has WIN and Fritz can only use half of the hash.
SO when you have 8MB Ram you'll get maybe 2 or 4 MB Hash.

I don't know WHY it works. But it works, IMO.

>: What I also don't know if it makes a big difference playing with or
>: without permanent brain with the namend time control. By email it is
>: absolutely senseless to post the used time so that the permanent brain
>: could start for this time because neither Fritz nor Rebel i.e. store the
>: clock standings. :-O

>Thinking on the opponent's time is worth at least 100 rating points I'd
>suspect, in anything except maybe correspondence chess. Using the "idle"
>time while waiting on the opponent lets the program average significantly
>more time per move than the basic time control allows...

>: And some programs in opposite to Genius don't start thinking with p.b.
>: when the game is loaded, they use it late after entering a move.
>: It is even impossible to use 2h/40moves with Fritz4, he uses from move 30
>: or so more than 10min/move because he thinks he has left 2 hours for the
>: rest 10 moves so he can calculate much longer for the next move.
>: Strange is that MChessPro uses much more time when he comes out of book
>: than all the other programs so that he often has time problems that begin
>: at move 33 i.e.

I do the same when coming out of book. I look for a plan. So does
Mchess ! Nothing to worry about. Nothing strange. Just very human.

>Crafty is more like Mchess Pro as well... using more time up front, and
>less time when the game has fewer pieces. It occasionally backfires, but
>also lets it get a little more depth when things are "interesting..."

'Cause crafty is also somehow human-like.

>: So maybe games played via email (OFFLINE!) are worthless but for some
>: people, like me, it is the only possibility when not having 2 pc's and an
>: autoplayer...

>: m> Of course ChessBase does not know about - they don't have the
>: m> capacities and the money to buy 64 MB ( I don't have that money
>: m> too...)

>: Right, they even have no money to spend for testing Fritz4 ... :-)))

What a poor company, making such an amount of money with selling
SOFTWARE on cheap discs or cd's in cheap boxes and not having the
amount of money to test the programs.
Who gets all the cash-flow after products are sold ? Frans Morsch ?
No, he is too ascetic for that.
Let us consider.... who ?

[mclane]

da...@laraby.tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:

>ChessBase GmbH (Wuelle...@t-online.de) wrote:
>: > But, maybe, the CB programmers have been very clever and

> Seems like Chess Assistant dreamed about unlimited chess trees
>long before ChessBase did. In fact, ChessBase still does not have it.

We will see what Chess-Assistant WINDOWS will do against Chess-Base
Windows in a competition.

It looks like it will be a nice fight of systems!!

Who will win?

[Cpsoft]

Harald Faber <Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org> wrote in article <dad_961...@shadow.franken.de>...

Harald, I know this is just subjective but if you left out:

>
> I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:
>

and

>
> Ciao and see ya
>

I'ld find your posts more amenable :)

Chris Whittington

[Bernhard Sadlowski]

In article <01bbf3e5$b878b780$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,

ADD ME TO YOUR LIST! :-)

>
>
>------=_NextPart_000_01BBF3E5.B878B780
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
>color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial"><br><br><br><br>Harald Faber &lt;<font =
>color=3D"#0000FF"><u>Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org</u><font =
>color=3D"#000000">&gt; wrote in article &lt;<font =
>color=3D"#0000FF"><u>dad_961...@shadow.franken.de</u><font =
>color=3D"#000000">&gt;...<br><br>Harald, I know this is just subjective =
>but if you left out:<br><br>&gt;<br>&gt; I think I have an interesting =
>aspect to tell you:<br>&gt; <br><br>and<br><br>&gt; <br>&gt; Ciao and =
>see ya<br>&gt;<br><br>I'ld find your posts more amenable :)<br><br>Chris =
>Whittington<br><br><br></p>
></font></font></font></font></font></body></html>
>------=_NextPart_000_01BBF3E5.B878B780--

Hmmm... how about leaving out this .html/netscape stuff Chris ? :-)

Bernhard
--
Bernhard Sadlowski
<sadl...@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de>

[mclane]

"Cpsoft" <po...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Harald, I know this is just subjective but if you left out:

>>
>> I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:
>>

>and

>>
>> Ciao and see ya
>>

>I'ld find your posts more amenable :)

>Chris Whittington

Can you explain what you meant. I have just eaten 3 portions of POMMES
FRITES with a huge CURRYWURST and my stomach has problems to
understand your comments on Harald.
I thought Haralds posting was very funny, detailed and precise.

I hope Harald has nothing against ChessBase ?! :-)

[Cpsoft]

mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote in article <E34zs...@news.prima.ruhr.de>...
> "Cpsoft" <po...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

My post had zilch to do with the content of Harald's post.

But with the same old header and footer that he always posts with (interesting
aspect .. ciao and ...)

It was a subjective hint that he changed or dropped them, that's all.

Chris Whittington

[Cpsoft]

[Harald Faber]

Hello Chris,

p> Harald, I know this is just subjective but if you left out:
p>
p> > I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:
p>
p> and
p>
p> > Ciao and see ya

Oh come on, why don't you flame KK for 4-5 line-footer? ;-)

p> I'ld find your posts more amenable :)
p> Chris Whittington

Oh, you are one of few who reads header and sig. :-O

But isn't the contents more important than a useless header and sig? ;-)

I would leave it but it is expected. :-O

And it is easier to bear than 10kB quotations and one sentence comment.
;-)

Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

Hello Robert,

RH> : You really expect better/stronger play? I do not believe that with a
RH> time : control of about 3min/move it makes a difference if Fritz4.01 plays
RH> with : 32MB or with 16MB hash.
RH> : I mean I can forward this aspect because the colleague has 48MB RAM so
RH> it : wouldn't be a problem to run Fritz4.01 with 32MB hash under Win3.11
RH>
RH> Doubling the hash is not going to make a big difference. maybe 10%-20%
RH> at the very best, assuming the small size is just under some critical size
RH> boundary and the larger size is over that boundary.

Ah, that's what I expected. So we can leave out playing with 32MB instead
of 16MB.

RH> : What I also don't know if it makes a big difference playing with or
RH> : without permanent brain with the namend time control. By email it is
RH> : absolutely senseless to post the used time so that the permanent brain
RH> : could start for this time because neither Fritz nor Rebel i.e. store the
RH> : clock standings. :-O
RH>
RH> Thinking on the opponent's time is worth at least 100 rating points I'd
RH> suspect, in anything except maybe correspondence chess. Using the "idle"
RH> time while waiting on the opponent lets the program average significantly
RH> more time per move than the basic time control allows...

Right, but are there differences in effectivity for some programs? SOme
seem to be very weak although they are high-rated in SSDF. Why should it
change because both opponents should profit from pemanent brain, or are
there really significant differences? Genius4 i.e seems to be in
disadvantage when permanent brain is missing while other programs like
Fritz3 profit from a missing p.b. :-?

RH> : Strange is that MChessPro uses much more time when he comes out of book
RH> : than all the other programs so that he often has time problems that
RH> begin : at move 33 i.e.
RH>
RH> Crafty is more like Mchess Pro as well... using more time up front, and
RH> less time when the game has fewer pieces. It occasionally backfires, but
RH> also lets it get a little more depth when things are "interesting..."

Yeah but in the further game MCP seems to lose because he doesn't have
enough time. Does he play really that much better with normal time control
(instead of 3min/move take 40moves/2h) AND pemanent brain?

[Harald Faber]

Hello mclane,

m> >: You really expect better/stronger play? I do not believe that with a
m> >time : control of about 3min/move it makes a difference if Fritz4.01 plays
m> >with : 32MB or with 16MB hash.

m> This was my idea too. Before somebody told me to try it out myself !!
m> I was sceptically myself. So I have never tried out.
m> But then I put the Ram's into my machine, gave Fritz4.01 more than
m> 16MB and suddenly... it played really stronger. No joke. I would be
m> the last person from who you exspect telling about
m> playing-strength-increases of Fritz4.01.
m>
m> But let us consider that Fritz4.01 is computing many positions per
m> second, that it is a very extreme program concerning TREE-management,
m> and that somebody using 8 MB RAM is not getting much Hash because he
m> has WIN and Fritz can only use half of the hash.
m> SO when you have 8MB Ram you'll get maybe 2 or 4 MB Hash.
m> I don't know WHY it works. But it works, IMO.

Well the question was if it is useful to take 32MB or 16MB hash. I suppose
that there is no significant difference.

m> >: Strange is that MChessPro uses much more time when he comes out of book
m> >: than all the other programs so that he often has time problems that
m> >begin : at move 33 i.e.
m>
m> I do the same when coming out of book. I look for a plan. So does
m> Mchess ! Nothing to worry about. Nothing strange. Just very human.

And makes it quite interesting!
But seems to be a big disadvantage in playing via e-mail.
I hope next year to build up a 2nd pc so that I can test via autoplayer
myself if it makes such a big difference.

m> >: m> Of course ChessBase does not know about - they don't have the
m> >: m> capacities and the money to buy 64 MB ( I don't have that money
m> >: m> too...)
m>
m> >: Right, they even have no money to spend for testing Fritz4 ... :-)))

m> What a poor company, making such an amount of money with selling
m> SOFTWARE on cheap discs or cd's in cheap boxes and not having the
m> amount of money to test the programs.
m> Who gets all the cash-flow after products are sold ? Frans Morsch ?
m> No, he is too ascetic for that.
m> Let us consider.... who ?

Juergen Schneider? :-)))))

[Harald Faber]

Hello Thorsten,

m> From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
m> Subject: Re: Fritz4
m> Organization: Prima e.V. Dortmund
m>
m> >Harald, I know this is just subjective but if you left out:

m> >> I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:

m> >> Ciao and see ya

m> >I'ld find your posts more amenable :)
m> >Chris Whittington

m> Can you explain what you meant. I have just eaten 3 portions of POMMES
m> FRITES with a huge CURRYWURST and my stomach has problems to
m> understand your comments on Harald.
m> I thought Haralds posting was very funny, detailed and precise.

Hmm, funny... to which mail do you refer? :-)

m> I hope Harald has nothing against ChessBase ?! :-)

No, nothing against them, I only dislike some of their politics. ;-)

[Harald Faber]

Hello Chris,

p> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Very interesting. ;-)

p> > Can you explain what you meant. I have just eaten 3 portions of POMMES
p> > FRITES with a huge CURRYWURST and my stomach has problems to
p> > understand your comments on Harald.
p> > I thought Haralds posting was very funny, detailed and precise.

p> My post had zilch to do with the content of Harald's post.
p> But with the same old header and footer that he always posts with
p> (interesting
p> aspect .. ciao and ...)
p> It was a subjective hint that he changed or dropped them, that's all.
p> Chris Whittington

So look below and put a finger on your nose, your footer is more useless
than mine was. :-)
(It is my intention to quote this, I will avoid it in future)

BTW why don't you use so few smileys when not saying s.th. for serious?

p> ------=_NextPart_000_01BBF4F4.A5C57780
p> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
p> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
p>
p> <html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
p> color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial"><br><br><br><br>mclane &lt;<font =
p> color=3D"#0000FF"><u>mcl...@prima.ruhr.de</u><font =
p> color=3D"#000000">&gt; wrote in article &lt;<font =
p> color=3D"#0000FF"><u>E34zs...@news.prima.ruhr.de</u><font =
p> color=3D"#000000">&gt;...<br>&gt; &quot;Cpsoft&quot; &lt;<font =
p> color=3D"#0000FF"><u>po...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk</u><font =
p> color=3D"#000000">&gt; wrote:<br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; =
p> &gt;Harald, I know this is just subjective but if you left out:<br>&gt; =
p> <br>&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>&gt; &gt;&gt; I think I have an interesting aspect =
p> to tell you:<br>&gt; &gt;&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; &gt;and<br>&gt; <br>&gt; =
p> &gt;&gt; <br>&gt; &gt;&gt; Ciao and see ya<br>&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>&gt; =
p> <br>&gt; &gt;I'ld find your posts more amenable :)<br>&gt; <br>&gt; =
p> &gt;Chris Whittington<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Can you explain what you meant. I =
p> have just eaten 3 portions of POMMES<br>&gt; FRITES with a huge =
p> CURRYWURST and my stomach has problems to<br>&gt; understand your =
p> comments on Harald.<br>&gt; I thought Haralds posting was very funny, =
p> detailed and precise.<br><br>My post had zilch to do with the content of =
p> Harald's post.<br><br>But with the same old header and footer that he =
p> always posts with (interesting<br>aspect .. ciao and ...)<br><br>It was =
p> a subjective hint that he changed or dropped them, that's =
p> all.<br><br>Chris Whittington<br><br>&gt; <br>&gt; I hope Harald has =
p> nothing against ChessBase ?! &nbsp;&nbsp;:-)<br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; =
p> </p>
p> </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></body></html>
p> ------=_NextPart_000_01BBF4F4.A5C57780--
p>
p>
p> ---
p> * Origin: Usenet:Oxford Softworks (1001:1/0)

[Harald Faber]

Hello pitters,

p> Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989
p>
p> White : Ke4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,
p> a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5
p>
p> *Fuer den Ersteller des Testprogramms ist die ERSTMALIGE Loesung schon ein
p> Erlebnis der besonderen Art. Donninger muss seinen Koenigen ein erhoehtes
p> Sicherheitsbeduerfnis verliehen haben * ( ALLES LUEGE .........)
p> The point is, that this was NOT the TRUE : Kh3 is also detected by Genius
p> 3.5 ( very fast !!!! ), Genius 3, Fritz 3, Fritz 4.01, Genius 2 and
p> naturally by MCP6. So his demonstration is without worth and what do you
p> think, MCLANE or TORSTEN ? You know, that Rehburg is working for the CSS (
p> staendiger Mitarbeiter ) ! Could it be, that there is some favourism
p> ?????? Why is he lieing ?

Hmm, could you tell me on which hardware MCP6 finds the solution because
on my 486/133 with 10MB hash and 40moves/2h he doesn't.

p> So I `ll never publish again any articles in the CSS - Magazine
p> ......................It is useless :-((
p> -Peter

Interesting... what is your name undeer which you wrote articles?

[Harald Faber]

Hello Bernhard,

BS> >Harald, I know this is just subjective but if you left out:

BS> >> I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:

BS> >and

BS> >> Ciao and see ya

BS> >I'ld find your posts more amenable :)
BS> >Chris Whittington
BS>
BS> ADD ME TO YOUR LIST! :-)

Pah, Banause. ;-)

Schreibselst Du eigentlich im Chessnet nicht mehr oder war das das
SCHACH.GER? ;-)

BS> Bernhard Sadlowski
BS> <sadl...@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de>

[Robert Hyatt]

Harald Faber (Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org) wrote:
: Hello Robert,

: RH> : You really expect better/stronger play? I do not believe that with a
: RH> time : control of about 3min/move it makes a difference if Fritz4.01 plays
: RH> with : 32MB or with 16MB hash.
: RH> : I mean I can forward this aspect because the colleague has 48MB RAM so

: RH> it : wouldn't be a problem to run Fritz4.01 with 32MB hash under Win3.11
: RH>
: RH> Doubling the hash is not going to make a big difference. maybe 10%-20%
: RH> at the very best, assuming the small size is just under some critical size
: RH> boundary and the larger size is over that boundary.

: Ah, that's what I expected. So we can leave out playing with 32MB instead
: of 16MB.

: RH> : What I also don't know if it makes a big difference playing with or
: RH> : without permanent brain with the namend time control. By email it is
: RH> : absolutely senseless to post the used time so that the permanent brain
: RH> : could start for this time because neither Fritz nor Rebel i.e. store the
: RH> : clock standings. :-O
: RH>
: RH> Thinking on the opponent's time is worth at least 100 rating points I'd
: RH> suspect, in anything except maybe correspondence chess. Using the "idle"
: RH> time while waiting on the opponent lets the program average significantly
: RH> more time per move than the basic time control allows...

: Right, but are there differences in effectivity for some programs? SOme
: seem to be very weak although they are high-rated in SSDF. Why should it
: change because both opponents should profit from pemanent brain, or are
: there really significant differences? Genius4 i.e seems to be in
: disadvantage when permanent brain is missing while other programs like
: Fritz3 profit from a missing p.b. :-?

I can't imagine any program "suffering" from thinking on the opponent's time
and actually playing better when it's off. There are several "gains" for
thinking on the opponent's time:

1. you save time if you predict correctly.. and this happens a big
percentage of the time.

2. if you are wrong in the prediction, you still load up the transposition
table with good ordering information, so that even though a different move was
made, the current position will likely be in the table as a transposition,
so that the search goes quickly and also gets better ordering.

3. things like history tables and pawn hashing and other tables are also
loaded with good data that can be used...

: RH> : Strange is that MChessPro uses much more time when he comes out of book
: RH> : than all the other programs so that he often has time problems that
: RH> begin : at move 33 i.e.
: RH>

: RH> Crafty is more like Mchess Pro as well... using more time up front, and
: RH> less time when the game has fewer pieces. It occasionally backfires, but
: RH> also lets it get a little more depth when things are "interesting..."

: Yeah but in the further game MCP seems to lose because he doesn't have
: enough time. Does he play really that much better with normal time control
: (instead of 3min/move take 40moves/2h) AND pemanent brain?

It's a risk. Use the time right out of book and avoid possible trouble or
find out why the opponent's move led to a non-book position (there might be
a tactical refutation to his move) or save the time and get into trouble
quickly, and then find that the extra time isn't enough to save the game.
In short, it's a gamble. For me, using more time up front makes more sense,
since the search speeds up later in the game as material is removed anyway...

: Ciao and see ya
: Harald
: --

[Bernhard Sadlowski]

In article <0cc_961...@shadow.franken.de>,

Harald Faber <Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org> wrote:
>p> > I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:
>p>
>p> and
>p>
>p> > Ciao and see ya
>
>Oh come on, why don't you flame KK for 4-5 line-footer? ;-)
>
>p> I'ld find your posts more amenable :)
>p> Chris Whittington
>
>Oh, you are one of few who reads header and sig. :-O
>
>But isn't the contents more important than a useless header and sig? ;-)

Well, I think more important is the correct attribution about who said what.
In the paragraph above you are quoting Chris with "p>" but his name doesn't
appear in the header (sorry I snipped that part away.. :-)). Insted of this
you have a formula there which repeats over and over with every post you
make. This is quite disturbing if you read it very often. This has nothing
to do with the contents of your articles.

>I would leave it but it is expected. :-O

Who expects it ? Some other FIDO members ? :)

>And it is easier to bear than 10kB quotations and one sentence comment.
>;-)

Bernhard
--
Bernhard Sadlowski
<sadl...@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de>

[mclane]

Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org (Harald Faber) wrote:

>Hello pitters,

>Ciao and see ya
>Harald
>--

"It has a name, spell it...":
P e t e r S c h r e i n e r

[mclane]

>m> Let us consider.... who ?

>Juergen Schneider? :-)))))

Herein wenn's kein Schneider ist ?!

[mclane]

Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org (Harald Faber) wrote:

>Hello Thorsten,

>m> From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
>m> Subject: Re: Fritz4
>m> Organization: Prima e.V. Dortmund
>m>
>m> >Harald, I know this is just subjective but if you left out:

>m> >> I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:

>m> >> Ciao and see ya

>m> >I'ld find your posts more amenable :)
>m> >Chris Whittington

>m> Can you explain what you meant. I have just eaten 3 portions of POMMES
>m> FRITES with a huge CURRYWURST and my stomach has problems to
>m> understand your comments on Harald.
>m> I thought Haralds posting was very funny, detailed and precise.

>Hmm, funny... to which mail do you refer? :-)

Today I have eaten the famous philadelphia-steak. Therefore I can't
tell you which posts.
Das Sein bestimmt das Bewußtsein. Das Fressen die Welt.

>m> I hope Harald has nothing against ChessBase ?! :-)

>No, nothing against them, I only dislike some of their politics. ;-)

Unbelievable. Shall I book you some telephone calls by fred ?
He will tell you how ChessBase can CHANGE your life.

[mclane]

Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org (Harald Faber) wrote:

>Hello Chris,

>p> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

>Very interesting. ;-)
Yes , what is this shit stuff here in mime format.
Maybe Chris has again switched a wrong button on his machine when he
was drunken the 1.1.1997 ?!

>p> > Can you explain what you meant. I have just eaten 3 portions of POMMES
>p> > FRITES with a huge CURRYWURST and my stomach has problems to
>p> > understand your comments on Harald.
>p> > I thought Haralds posting was very funny, detailed and precise.

>p> My post had zilch to do with the content of Harald's post.
>p> But with the same old header and footer that he always posts with
>p> (interesting
>p> aspect .. ciao and ...)
>p> It was a subjective hint that he changed or dropped them, that's all.
>p> Chris Whittington

>So look below and put a finger on your nose, your footer is more useless
>than mine was. :-)
>(It is my intention to quote this, I will avoid it in future)

>BTW why don't you use so few smileys when not saying s.th. for serious?

everything chris says is a joke. This is the reason he has 6 children.
The women never believe that he says or does something serious. And
suddenly they are pregnant.

[Harald Faber]

Hello mclane,

m> From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
m> Subject: Re: Fritz4
m> Organization: Prima e.V. Dortmund

m> >Hmm, funny... to which mail do you refer? :-)
m> Today I have eaten the famous philadelphia-steak. Therefore I can't
m> tell you which posts.

Doesn't matter...

m> Das Sein bestimmt das Bewu#tsein. Das Fressen die Welt.

Hm, I thought it was sex and money...

m> >m> I hope Harald has nothing against ChessBase ?! :-)

m> >No, nothing against them, I only dislike some of their politics. ;-)

m> Unbelievable. Shall I book you some telephone calls by fred ?
m> He will tell you how ChessBase can CHANGE your life.

Of course it WILL change your life if you BELIEVE what he says, that you
need all the chesbase-stuff. And of course you can spend endless money for
everything cb gets in its fingers.. that's the politics I don't like. what
do you mean?

Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

Hello Bernhard,

BS> From: sadl...@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de... (Bernhard Sadlowski)
BS> Subject: Re: Fritz4
BS> Organization: Home Office...
BS>

BS> >Oh, you are one of few who reads header and sig. :-O
BS> >But isn't the contents more important than a useless header and sig? ;-)

BS> Well, I think more important is the correct attribution about who said
BS> what. In the paragraph above you are quoting Chris with "p>" but his name
BS> doesn't appear in the header (sorry I snipped that part away.. :-)).

This is only a problem if someone sends his realname like "A bean" so XP
quotes "A i.e.
Otherwise it is no problem as you see...

BS> Insted of this you have a formula there which repeats over and over with
BS> every post you make. This is quite disturbing if you read it very often.

I for myself am not very interested in reading who wrote what in every
mail. I see it before I read the mail.

BS> >I would leave it but it is expected. :-O
BS> Who expects it ? Some other FIDO members ? :)

Probably ALL... ;-)

BS> Bernhard Sadlowski
BS> <sadl...@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de>

Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

Hello mclane,

m> From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
m> Subject: Re: Fritz

m> Organization: Prima e.V. Dortmund
m>

m>
m> >m> Let us consider.... who ?

m> >Juergen Schneider? :-)))))
m> Herein wenn's kein Schneider ist ?!

I think he won't come in for he is supposed to be in jail... :-)

Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

Hello mclane,

m> From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
m> Subject: Re: Fritz, Extreme, and the competition

m> Organization: Prima e.V. Dortmund
m>

m> >Hello pitters,

m> >p> Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989
m> >p>
m> >p> White : Ke4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,
m> >p> a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5

m> >Hmm, could you tell me on which hardware MCP6 finds the solution because
m> >on my 486/133 with 10MB hash and 40moves/2h he doesn't.

m> >p> So I `ll never publish again any articles in the CSS - Magazine
m> >p> ......................It is useless :-((
m> >p> -Peter

m> >Interesting... what is your name undeer which you wrote articles?
m> >Harald
m>
m> "It has a name, spell it...":
m> P e t e r S c h r e i n e r

Aha.
But I am still waiting for the info on which hardware MCP6 is said to find
the solution when on my he doesn't. :-?

Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

Hello mclane,

m> >Hello Chris,

m> >BTW why don't you use so few smileys when not saying s.th. for serious?
m> everything chris says is a joke. This is the reason he has 6 children.
m> The women never believe that he says or does something serious. And
m> suddenly they are pregnant.

Ah, he lies when he says "I changed the anti-baby-drug with an anti-
headache-drug"... :-)

Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

Hello Robert,

RH> From: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
RH> Subject: Re: permanent brain effects
RH> Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

RH> : Right, but are there differences in effectivity for some programs? SOme
RH> : seem to be very weak although they are high-rated in SSDF. Why should it
RH> : change because both opponents should profit from pemanent brain, or are
RH> : there really significant differences? Genius4 i.e seems to be in
RH> : disadvantage when permanent brain is missing while other programs like
RH> : Fritz3 profit from a missing p.b. :-?
RH>
RH> I can't imagine any program "suffering" from thinking on the opponent's

Sorry, misunderstanding. I meant that I suppose that some programs suffer
more from a missing p.b. than others.

RH> time and actually playing better when it's off. There are several "gains"
RH> for thinking on the opponent's time:

Clear.

RH> : Yeah but in the further game MCP seems to lose because he doesn't have
RH> : enough time. Does he play really that much better with normal time
RH> control : (instead of 3min/move take 40moves/2h) AND pemanent brain?
RH>
RH> It's a risk. Use the time right out of book and avoid possible trouble or
RH> find out why the opponent's move led to a non-book position (there might
RH> be a tactical refutation to his move) or save the time and get into
RH> trouble quickly, and then find that the extra time isn't enough to save
RH> the game. In short, it's a gamble. For me, using more time up front makes
RH> more sense, since the search speeds up later in the game as material is
RH> removed anyway...

Hmm. We try to compare programs with near tournament-conditions. It is
only possible to do this offline via e-mail when both programs save the
used/rested time or the clock-standings AND starts thinking when loading
the position. Then we could send not only the last move of our program but
also the used time for it and let the p.b. calculate for the given time.
But no program except for Genius does this. I didn't see it at MCPro
(saves clocks but doesn't start p.b. thinking when game loaded), Fritz,
Rebel etc. So the only way for us is take 3min/move which some programs
take over to 120min/40moves with no effect of the p.b.
But these results differ from other known. So the question is if some
programs profit more from permanent-brain, if some programs are really
pentium-optimized (we play 486/133 which should be a P75 with dhrystone
about 65.000 against P90, both almost equal hash size) and if we should
play more than only a few games which certanily have a big fault in
statistics. Probably the last point is the true one, tinking of some
engine-vs-engine-games within Fritz4. For the first few games (20-30) I
saw Fritz4 clearly leading against Fritz3.10 but after some more games
(60+) it ran to about 50%, for some games 3.10 was leading...

Am I right?

Harald
--

[Robert Hyatt]

Harald Faber (Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org) wrote:

: Hello mclane,

: Harald
: --

I'd like to see the correct position too. :) White has a king and N on e4 for
example...

Bob

[Howard Exner]

Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
<5b91h2$3...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
> Harald Faber (Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org) wrote:
>
...Snip...

> I'd like to see the correct position too. :) White has a king and
N on e4 for
> example...
>
> Bob

I found this game in my Karpov collection. It
should read as

8/3p1k2/3Bp2p/1q2p2p/p3N1K1/2R2PP1/8/8 w - - id=Karpov,A - Salov,V;
bm=g4h3;

Karpov played Kxh5 and resigned a few moves
later. I tested this on Rebel 8(486-133MHz) with the combination
setting on and selection=9. It plays Kxh3 at14:12 of the 11th ply.
Default mode took longer than 15:00 so I
stopped the analysis.

Howard

[pit...@aol.com]

Im Artikel <4ea_970...@shadow.franken.de>,
Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org (Harald Faber) schreibt:

>Aha.
>But I am still waiting for the info on which hardware MCP6 is said to
find
>the solution when on my he doesn't. :-?
>
>
>Harald

Hallo Harald,

proved with these two configurations :

1.) Pentium 200 MHz, 512 KB PBCache, 64 MB HashTables
........................

2.) Pentium 166 MHz, 256 KB PBCache, 31 MB HashTables
........................

Have fun

-Peter

[pit...@aol.com]

Im Artikel <5b91h2$3...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>, hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert
Hyatt) schreibt:

>Harald Faber (Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org) wrote:
>
>: Hello mclane,
>
>
>: m> From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
>: m> Subject: Re: Fritz, Extreme, and the competition
>: m> Organization: Prima e.V. Dortmund
>: m>
>: m> >Hello pitters,
>
>: m> >p> Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989
>: m> >p>
>: m> >p> White : Ke4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,
>: m> >p> a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5
>
>: m> >Hmm, could you tell me on which hardware MCP6 finds the solution
>because
>: m> >on my 486/133 with 10MB hash and 40moves/2h he doesn't.
>
>: m> >p> So I `ll never publish again any articles in the CSS - Magazine
>: m> >p> ......................It is useless :-((
>: m> >p> -Peter
>
>: m> >Interesting... what is your name undeer which you wrote articles?
>: m> >Harald
>: m>
>: m> "It has a name, spell it...":
>: m> P e t e r S c h r e i n e r
>

>: Aha.

>: But I am still waiting for the info on which hardware MCP6 is said to
find
>
>: the solution when on my he doesn't. :-?
>
>
>: Harald

>: --

>
>I'd like to see the correct position too. :) White has a king and N on
e4
>for
>example...
>
>Bob
>
>

Hi Bob,

here is the correct position :

White : Kg4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6, f3, g3 Black: Kf7,Qb5, a4, d7, e6, e5,
h6, h5

-Peter

[Harald Faber]

Hello Robert,

RH> From: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)

RH> Subject: Re: Fritz, Extreme, and the competition

RH> Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

: m>> >p> Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989
: m>> >p>
: m>> >p> White : Ke4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,
: m>> >p> a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5

RH> : Aha.
RH> : But I am still waiting for the info on which hardware MCP6 is said to
RH> find : the solution when on my he doesn't. :-?
RH> : Harald

RH> I'd like to see the correct position too. :) White has a king and N on
RH> e4 for example...
RH> Bob

King must be on g4 of course...

Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

Hello Howard,

HE> Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
HE> <5b91h2$3...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...

HE> I found this game in my Karpov collection. It
HE> should read as

HE> 8/3p1k2/3Bp2p/1q2p2p/p3N1K1/2R2PP1/8/8 w - - id=Karpov,A - Salov,V;
HE> bm=g4h3;
HE>
HE> Karpov played Kxh5 and resigned a few moves
HE> later. I tested this on Rebel 8(486-133MHz) with the combination
HE> setting on and selection=9. It plays Kxh3 at14:12 of the 11th ply.
HE> Default mode took longer than 15:00 so I
HE> stopped the analysis.
HE> Howard

It is in the Guenther-Rehburg (german chess-program-tester) testing
positions, although someone here claims MCP6 finds this move my version
doesn't on 486/133 with 32MB hash.

Harald
--

[mclane]

Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org (Harald Faber) wrote:

>Hello mclane,

what
>do you mean?

>Harald
>--
The same you think in your posts.

[mclane]

hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>Harald Faber (Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org) wrote:

>: Hello mclane,

>: m> From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
>: m> Subject: Re: Fritz, Extreme, and the competition
>: m> Organization: Prima e.V. Dortmund
>: m>
>: m> >Hello pitters,

Karpov - Salov Rotterdam 1989

White : Kg4, Rc3, Ne4, Bd6 f3,g3 Black : Kf7,Qb5,

a4,d7,e6,e5,h6.h5 Solution : Kh3 ! not Kxh5

>: m> >Hmm, could you tell me on which hardware MCP6 finds the solution because

>: m> >on my 486/133 with 10MB hash and 40moves/2h he doesn't.

>: m> >p> So I `ll never publish again any articles in the CSS - Magazine
>: m> >p> ......................It is useless :-((
>: m> >p> -Peter

>: m>

>: m> "It has a name, spell it...":
>: m> P e t e r S c h r e i n e r

>: Aha.
>: But I am still waiting for the info on which hardware MCP6 is said to find

>: the solution when on my he doesn't. :-?

>: Harald
>: --

>I'd like to see the correct position too. :) White has a king and N on e4 for
>example...

>Bob

We corrected Pitters posting in another thread, sorry, you seem not to
have read it.

The King is in g4 and it is in check!

Best wishes...

[Harald Faber]

Hello Peter,

p> From: pit...@aol.com
p> Subject: Re: Fritz, Extreme, and the competition
p> Organization: AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG
p> http://www.germany.aol.com

p> >But I am still waiting for the info on which hardware MCP6 is said to
p> find the solution when on my he doesn't. :-?
p> >Harald

p> Hallo Harald,
p> proved with these two configurations :
p>
p> 1.) Pentium 200 MHz, 512 KB PBCache, 64 MB HashTables
p> ........................
p>
p> 2.) Pentium 166 MHz, 256 KB PBCache, 31 MB HashTables
p> ........................

OK, this hardware is of course a little faster than my 486/133... :-)
That's what I expected..

Harald
--