The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
Ed Schröder
The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
A few weeks ago Marty Hirsch (author of Mchess5) wrote:
"Opening preparation against commercial opponents matters somewhat, but
not as much as one might expect, because an SSDF rating is based on
hundreds of games against at least twenty opponents."
I replied that at matters AT LEAST 100 ELO points on SSDF.
I have posted my reply also to Marty's email address so he couldn't miss
my comments. Till now I have not received any reply from Marty. Not here
and not in RGCC.
In the between time I have started several matches between Mchess5 and a
few chess programs to find out the REAL impact of killer books.
I find the results very shocking!
Here are the results against:
Mchess5 - Genius3 (currently no. 1 on SSDF ELO 2420) 7.5 - 2.5
Mchess5 - Rebel6 (currently no. 3 on SSDF ELO 2415) 13.0 - 1.0
Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 (currently no. 9 on SSDF ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
According to the HIGH ratings of Genius3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3 these
results are IMPOSSIBLE in normal play (without book traps)
I think you all now can see the impact of killer lines and maybe you
understand my feelings better and my aversion against cooked books.
To make it more clear I have made a statistic where you can see the
move where Mchess5 left the book, but take special care about the first
score. Mchess5 comes most often (if not all the time) with a TOTAL WON
position out of book! ^^^^^ ^^^
At Aegon 1994 Sandro Necchi (the Mchess5 book editor) very openly stated:
"With Mchess5 we will book out all programs and we will be the new
no.1 on SSDF".
Sandro also explained to Jeroen Noomen (the Rebel book editor) how he
prepares the book cooking on concurrent computer opponents like Genius,
Hiarcs and Rebel the main competitors for a first place on SSDF.
"A specific opening line is chosen, Sandro is watching the play of
Genius3, Rebel etc. When Genius or Rebel makes a mistake Sandro makes
advantage of that and put this WON line in the Mchess5 book".
One of the MANY examples of Sandro's work is the following game
between Mchess5 and Genius3:
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5
Be7 7.Nc3 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4 Be6 10.Rhe1 h6 11. Bd3 O-O
12.Bxh6 Ne4 13.Qh5 g6 14. Qe5 Bf6 15.Qf4 Nxc3 16.Rxe6 fxe6
17.Qg4 g5 18.Nxg5 Kh8 19.Qh5 Nxa2+ 20.Kb1 Nc3+ 21.bxc3 Qb6+
22.Kc1 Qb2+ 23. Kxb2 Bxc3+ 24.Kb3 Nd7 25.Bxf8+ Kg8 26.Qf7+
Kh8 27.Qh7# 1-0
The error is of course 11..0-0
After that move black is lost.
It's obvious that 11..0-0 is no theory at all.
Still the Mchess5 book continues till move 19 and Mchess even announces
a mate!! Sandro found a weak point in Genius and added the 11.. 0-0 ??
trap to the Mchess book.
The trap also works on other chess programs.
Here are the statistics:
Please note that the games are played in the same way SSDF does so you
will see many duplicates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Match Mchess5 - Genius3
Level 40 in 2:00
Machine 2 x P90 (identical)
Move = The move number where Mchess5 left the book.
Score = The score of the first Mchess5 move after leaving the book.
Game Move Score Result
---- ---- ----- ------
1 25 + 3.21 1-0
2 25 + 3.21 1-0
3 27 + 0.55 draw
4 46! + 3.26 draw
5 24 +11.53! 1-0
6 18 +11.04! 1-0
7 18 + 0.14 draw
8 18 +11.04 1-0
9 23 + 0.66 0-1
10 19 + Mat9!!! 1-0
Mchess5 - Genius3 7.5 - 2.5
-------------------------------------------------------------
Match Mchess5 - Hiarcs3
Level 40 in 2:00
Machine 2 x P90 (identical)
Move = The move number where Mchess5 left the book.
Score = The score of the first Mchess5 move after leaving the book.
Game Move Score Result
---- ---- ----- ------
1 28 +14.32 1-0
2 25 + 8.53 1-0
3 24 + 8.80 1-0
4 18 + 1.01 1-0
5 24 + 8.53 1-0
6 25 + 2.20 1-0
7 29 + 2.20 1-0
8 29 + 7.33 1-0
9 35 + 7.33 1-0
10 35 + 7.33 1-0
11 25 + 8.53 1-0
12 29 + 2.20 1-0
13 35 + 7.33 1-0
14 35 + 7.33 1-0
15 35 + 7.33 1-0
16 35 + 7.33 1-0
17 25 + 8.53 1-0
18 18 + 1.01 1-0
19 25 + 8.53 1-0
Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 19 - 0 I find this unacceptable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Match Mchess5 - Rebel6
Level 40 in 2:00
Machine 2 x P90 (identical)
Move = The move number where Mchess5 left the book.
Score = The score of the first Mchess5 move after leaving the book.
Game Move Score Result
---- ---- ----- ------
1 16 + 0.33 1-0
2 16 + 1.29 1-0
3 19 + Mat8!!! 1-0
4 16 + 7.45!! 1-0
5 28 + 1.49 1-0
6 19 + Mat8!!! 1-0
7 17 + 0.90 1-0
8 19 + Mat8!!! 1-0
9 13 + 0.00 draw
10 19 + Mat8!!! 1-0
11 16 + 1.29 1-0
12 19 + Mat8!!! 1-0
13 17 + 0.88 1-0
14 28 + 1.39 draw
Mchess5 - Rebel6 13 - 1 Also unacceptable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have posted all the games in PGN format on a new subject here in RGCC
in case anybody wants to check them. Just replay the games with Mchess5
and watch the cooked book lines.
Coming to the GOAL of this posting:
- Is this the future of computer chess?
- Spending months of our time on cooked books to get a good rating on
SSDF?
- Should the programmers of Genius, Hiarcs and Rebel do the same?
I obvious prefer to spend my time on improving the chess engine of Rebel
rather than spending months of my time looking for weak points in other
chess programs and add total won lines to the Rebel opening book!
Personally I find this behavior disgusting since it hides the truth of the
real playing strength of a chess program.
But I really wonder if I have any choice left!
What to do?
Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
about this subject.
I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
Just confused and worried.
- Ed Schroder -
chessman
Ed Schröder <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote in article
<53ting$n...@news.xs4all.nl>...
Personally, I believe this is a problem ...not only for consumers, but
programmers and the SSDF. I like to plays computers vs computers ..but
with killer books...that's not my idea of fun..bascially what you are doing
is just documenting the fact that the killer book author has found a
weakness in another program's opening book...and the SSDF will count the
duplicate gamnes over and over....I think the SSDF needs to get away from
this autoplaying....start picking positions at random from GM games ..and
have the programs play each other from both sides against each other with
books turned off fromthis random start ...otherwise the SSDF is just
wasting it's time contriving ratings that have absolutely no
credibility...unless they are interested in telling the world which program
has the best *cooked* book...*cooking* books will not take computer chess
to the next level...in fact, the end result will be wasted resources
...once an author know one of his lines is cooked..he will simple modify
the line and we'll be back to ground zero in improving chess
programs....it's really up to the SSDF to take the initiative to discourage
the book *cooking* ..and they can by changing the method on how they will
play the programs...but I doubt if you will see any changes....because my
perception is that they are not truly independent from all the programmers
....if they were independent they would recognize that this is a problem
and do something about it...we shall see...I hope my perception is wrong
Chris Whittington
"Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
>
> A few weeks ago Marty Hirsch (author of Mchess5) wrote:
>
> "Opening preparation against commercial opponents matters somewhat, but
> not as much as one might expect, because an SSDF rating is based on
> hundreds of games against at least twenty opponents."
>
> I replied that at matters AT LEAST 100 ELO points on SSDF.
>
> I have posted my reply also to Marty's email address so he couldn't miss
> my comments. Till now I have not received any reply from Marty. Not here
> and not in RGCC.
>
> In the between time I have started several matches between Mchess5 and a
> few chess programs to find out the REAL impact of killer books.
>
> I find the results very shocking!
>
> Here are the results against:
> Mchess5 - Genius3 (currently no. 1 on SSDF ELO 2420) 7.5 - 2.5
> Mchess5 - Rebel6 (currently no. 3 on SSDF ELO 2415) 13.0 - 1.0
> Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 (currently no. 9 on SSDF ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
>
> According to the HIGH ratings of Genius3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3 these
> results are IMPOSSIBLE in normal play (without book traps)
>
The answer is simple.
Apply a learning function to your program so that it avoids
opening lines that it loses.
Weight the function so that avoidance is stronger the more
recently the game was played.
So the 'cooked' program will win some games where your book is
busted, but your learning function will 'unbust' your book; and
you'll be back to playing random games again.
IMHO this feature is a chess strength negative for Mchess.
For it to work, Mchess has to have a very narrow and specific book.
Anrrow and specific books are very easy to counter attack - the
counter does not require a large amount of human intervention.
Secondly the 'cooked' lines are often bad. Its just that they
place a *computer* in difficulties. Think about it, if they
were good, they'ld be common human-human book lines, except
they aren't.
I've had great fun autoplaying Mchess with CST (both programs
learning function on). Mchess plays these obscure lines (Urusov
gambit is a favourite, or Volga Gambit). CST loses, self-mods
its book, finds a way out of the line that Mchess continually
throws at it, and, then, and here's the joke, CST wins 5 or
6 games in succession, until Mchess finds a way round or, more
usually, gives up on that particular opening.
Simple learning function is the answer. Its an arms race, get
racing.
Chris Whittington
Ian Harris
In article: <53ting$n...@news.xs4all.nl> "Ed Schr?der" <rebc...@xs4all.nl>
writes:
> <snip>
>
> Personally I find this behavior disgusting since it hides the truth of the
> real playing strength of a chess program.
>
> But I really wonder if I have any choice left!
>
> What to do?
>
> Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
> about this subject.
>
> I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
>
> Just confused and worried.
>
> - Ed Schroder -
>
I, for one, am in full agreement with your view, Ed.
The problem is in getting ALL progammers to agree amongst themselves that
"killer moves" should not be placed into the book - if this cannot be done
then I'm afraid you are left with having to join in.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Harris EMail i...@iharris.demon.co.uk or CompuServe 70374,3166
PGP 2.6.3i public key available on request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Mckone
Ed Schröder wrote:
>
> The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
> In the between time I have started several matches between Mchess5 and a
> few chess programs to find out the REAL impact of killer books.
>
> I find the results very shocking!
>
> Here are the results against:
> Mchess5 - Genius3 (currently no. 1 on SSDF ELO 2420) 7.5 - 2.5
> Mchess5 - Rebel6 (currently no. 3 on SSDF ELO 2415) 13.0 - 1.0
> Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 (currently no. 9 on SSDF ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
>
> According to the HIGH ratings of Genius3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3 these
> results are IMPOSSIBLE in normal play (without book traps)
>
> I think you all now can see the impact of killer lines and maybe you
> understand my feelings better and my aversion against cooked books.
> What to do?
>
> Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
> about this subject.
>
> I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
>
> Just confused and worried.
>
> - Ed Schroder -
One of the things I like about Rebel Decade is that it never plays the
same opening twice, and that it plays different variations when it
does repeat an opening. Could this be the way to defeat the
killer books? When GMs play a match they also try to find flaws
in their opponent's openings, and when they suspect that they are
approaching a prepared line, they play something that they haven't
played previously. Computers don't neet to always play the move
which they evaluate highest. Randomly playing second or third best,
when the scores are close, would do a lot to dodge the killer books
and to make the program more fun to play against. Altering the
opening book a little for each tournamant also seems prudent.
Putting some bad moves in your commercial book for Mchess to find
and then removing them for tournaments might be amusing.
Finding flaws in your opponents' openings, and dodging prepared traps
is an interesting part of chess, don't you think?
... Peter McKone
Robert Hyatt
Chris Whittington (chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: "Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
: >
: > The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
: >
: > A few weeks ago Marty Hirsch (author of Mchess5) wrote:
: >
: > "Opening preparation against commercial opponents matters somewhat, but
: > not as much as one might expect, because an SSDF rating is based on
: > hundreds of games against at least twenty opponents."
: >
: > I replied that at matters AT LEAST 100 ELO points on SSDF.
: >
: > I have posted my reply also to Marty's email address so he couldn't miss
: > my comments. Till now I have not received any reply from Marty. Not here
: > and not in RGCC.
: >
: > In the between time I have started several matches between Mchess5 and a
: > few chess programs to find out the REAL impact of killer books.
: >
: > I find the results very shocking!
: >
: > Here are the results against:
: > Mchess5 - Genius3 (currently no. 1 on SSDF ELO 2420) 7.5 - 2.5
: > Mchess5 - Rebel6 (currently no. 3 on SSDF ELO 2415) 13.0 - 1.0
: > Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 (currently no. 9 on SSDF ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
: >
: > According to the HIGH ratings of Genius3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3 these
: > results are IMPOSSIBLE in normal play (without book traps)
:
: The answer is simple.
: Apply a learning function to your program so that it avoids
: opening lines that it loses.
:
: Weight the function so that avoidance is stronger the more
: recently the game was played.
:
: So the 'cooked' program will win some games where your book is
: busted, but your learning function will 'unbust' your book; and
: you'll be back to playing random games again.
:
: IMHO this feature is a chess strength negative for Mchess.
: For it to work, Mchess has to have a very narrow and specific book.
: Anrrow and specific books are very easy to counter attack - the
: counter does not require a large amount of human intervention.
Not necessarily. Marty could just hook up Rebel and Mchess (or
any other program for that matter) and let his learning function
simply "learn" how to beat the other program by culling book lines
that result in losses and keeping lines that win. It's not elegant,
but it is simple because it does not take a lot of human time to
find these oddball lines...
:
: Secondly the 'cooked' lines are often bad. Its just that they
: place a *computer* in difficulties. Think about it, if they
: were good, they'ld be common human-human book lines, except
: they aren't.
A possible "learning disability" too. This is an issue I'm looking
at in Crafty now, but learning to beat weak players might convince
you that 1. e4 2. Bc4 and 3. Qf3 are good moves if if results in
lots of wins. The strength of the opponent has to be factored in,
where wins over opponents that are too weak simply don't affect the
learning at all.
More ideas for discussion as I get further into trying to implement
something here. As always I'll explain what I'm trying and see what
kind of discussion ensues...
:
: I've had great fun autoplaying Mchess with CST (both programs
: learning function on). Mchess plays these obscure lines (Urusov
: gambit is a favourite, or Volga Gambit). CST loses, self-mods
: its book, finds a way out of the line that Mchess continually
: throws at it, and, then, and here's the joke, CST wins 5 or
: 6 games in succession, until Mchess finds a way round or, more
: usually, gives up on that particular opening.
I see the same thing as Crafty plays WchessX, except that crafty
doesn't learn as of yet. However, WchessX keeps going back to
the same well over and over and the only thing that keeps crafty
in the match is that I give it some random freedom with a really
huge book so that it doesn't repeat too often...
:
: Simple learning function is the answer. Its an arms race, get
: racing.
:
: Chris Whittington
:
Robert Hyatt
Peter Mckone (pet...@loc3.tandem.com) wrote:
: Ed Schröder wrote:
: >
: > The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
:
: --- text deleted ---
:
: > In the between time I have started several matches between Mchess5 and a
: > few chess programs to find out the REAL impact of killer books.
: >
: > I find the results very shocking!
: >
: > Here are the results against:
: > Mchess5 - Genius3 (currently no. 1 on SSDF ELO 2420) 7.5 - 2.5
: > Mchess5 - Rebel6 (currently no. 3 on SSDF ELO 2415) 13.0 - 1.0
: > Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 (currently no. 9 on SSDF ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
: >
: > According to the HIGH ratings of Genius3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3 these
: > results are IMPOSSIBLE in normal play (without book traps)
: >
: > I think you all now can see the impact of killer lines and maybe you
: > understand my feelings better and my aversion against cooked books.
: --- Games deleted ---
:
: > What to do?
: >
: > Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
: > about this subject.
: >
: > I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
: >
: > Just confused and worried.
: >
: > - Ed Schroder -
: One of the things I like about Rebel Decade is that it never plays the
: same opening twice, and that it plays different variations when it
: does repeat an opening. Could this be the way to defeat the
: killer books? When GMs play a match they also try to find flaws
: in their opponent's openings, and when they suspect that they are
: approaching a prepared line, they play something that they haven't
: played previously. Computers don't neet to always play the move
: which they evaluate highest. Randomly playing second or third best,
: when the scores are close, would do a lot to dodge the killer books
: and to make the program more fun to play against. Altering the
: opening book a little for each tournamant also seems prudent.
: Putting some bad moves in your commercial book for Mchess to find
: and then removing them for tournaments might be amusing.
: Finding flaws in your opponents' openings, and dodging prepared traps
: is an interesting part of chess, don't you think?
:
: ... Peter McKone
Never is a long time. If you put it on a server, and play 20,000 games a
year, you'll likely see just how often it will repeat, because Crafty's
book is way bigger, and it still repeats openings too often for my liking...
Garby Leon
In <53ting$n...@news.xs4all.nl> "Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl>
writes:
>The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
>A few weeks ago Marty Hirsch (author of Mchess5) wrote:
> "Opening preparation against commercial opponents matters somewhat,
but not as much as one might expect, because an SSDF rating is based on
hundreds of games against at least twenty opponents."
>I replied that at matters AT LEAST 100 ELO points on SSDF.
>I have posted my reply also to Marty's email address so he couldn't
miss my comments. Till now I have not received any reply from Marty.
Not here and not in RGCC.
>In the between time I have started several matches between Mchess5 and
a few chess programs to find out the REAL impact of killer books.
>I find the results very shocking!
(SNIP - games and statistics that amply demonstrate Ed's point)
>Coming to the GOAL of this posting:
>
>- Is this the future of computer chess?
>- Spending months of our time on cooked books to get a good rating on
>SSDF? Should the programmers of Genius, Hiarcs and Rebel do the same?
>I obvious prefer to spend my time on improving the chess engine of
Rebel rather than spending months of my time looking for weak points in
other chess programs and add total won lines to the Rebel opening book!
>Personally I find this behavior disgusting since it hides the truth of
the real playing strength of a chess program.
>But I really wonder if I have any choice left!
>What to do?
>Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
>about this subject.
>I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
>Just confused and worried.
>- Ed Schroder -
Dear Ed --
Here's one person's opinion, for what it's worth.
As an ecstatic new owner of Rebel 8.0 -- OF COURSE I'd like to see you
spend 100% of your development time making Rebel 9.0 even stronger as a
chess-playing engine.
That's your strength -- your strongest game, if you will. You
shouldn't waste your time trying to do things which are tangential to
your main arena of artistry and specialization. Others can do that;
you shouldn't have to.
One wouldn't require or expect a concert pianist to tune the piano.
Even if bad tuning had negative effects on her or his "results."
The real-world problem for a commercial developer, if I understand it,
is that probably many people look at the SSDF list (or other tournament
results -- but NOT the WMCCC in Jakarta this year!!) and use those
results to make their purchase decision. I.e., they buy the program
which beats the others.
Now that seems logical and unassailable -- if we were putting together
a chess team for the Olympiad, we'd take the highest-rated players we
could find.
But what your dilemma suggests is that perhaps computer chess is
DIFFERENT from OTB play, with other considerations -- and very
important ones.
In short, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that
***with 'cooked' books, tournament play is not reflective of engine
strength.***
This is a really important point. In fact, for computer chess, it
tends to negate the value of tournaments at all! What a concept.
In fact, using 'cooked books' takes computer chess competition success
COMPLETELY OUTSIDE of the computer arena entirely: it makes tournament
results dependent on a purely human factor -- who has the sharpest IM
or GM to prepare the lines the computer will play. Or worse, which
company is able to pay the most for such services!
So, the resulting competition has nothing to do with computer chess at
all.
It's human chess, with computers pushing the pawns.
(Here, thanks to this newsgroup: this is something I would never have
been aware of without reading the posts of yourself and others in this
newsgroup).
OTHER PURCHASE CRITERIA (a personal aside):
In my own purchase decision (and I own two other commercial programs
besides Rebel 8.0), tournament results were NOT primary. I wanted the
strongest engine. Tournament results weren't a factor. Testing the
STRENGTH of the program WAS a factor.
Why did I look for engine strength? Well, I saw that my Chessica
program (a Fritz 3 version, I've heard -- which was hyped as being
"World Champion" when I bought it) often did stupid things. Beating it
ceased to interest me. It doesn't fear a passed pawn, for example, and
it rarely tries to queen a pawn on its own. In this and other
respects, I began to doubt its underlying chessplaying ability.
In contrast, Rebel 8.0 is strong enough to hammer me off the board with
alarming ease. It's actually kind of scary playing it -- a very
dangerous feeling, watching it move. And, it's exciting and inspiring
to have this kind of horsepower available on my desktop P-133.
Most important, engine strength addresses my primary interest in
computer chess -- the testing and learning of opening theory, and
subjecting one's own ideas to analysis -- which can only be aided by
having the strongest engine possible. That's what I use Rebel 8.0 for,
so that was my chief determinant in choosing which program to buy. For
this use, tournament results are irrelevant.
* * *
But I can see the commercial quandary in the underlying issue you
raise:
From a programmer's perspective: a 'cooked' book CONCEALS THE PLAYING
WEAKNESS of a program -- just that quality which you (and many others)
have spent so long trying to develop... and doing so brilliantly, I
might add.
So what is the answer here?
Does every professional program developer or company need its own IM or
GM -- or, forseeably even a TEAM of GM's like the old Soviet system --
to 'cook' its books for tournaments?
It seems like we're headed exactly in that direction. Especially if
and as more money pours into the field.
This, of course, may be what 'real' chessplayers do, as part of their
training and preparation. In OTB play, it isn't extrinsic to the fair
and open competition of chess -- just the opposite. It's part of the
game. If you don't want to prepare your openings, you won't get very
far. But this analogy to OTB play can be VERY MISLEADING.
Computer chess is fundamentally different: you don't make your living
by winning tournaments, but by selling programs. Winning isn't really
your goal, except as a means to maintain the commercial viability of
your product. Instead, you're a brilliant programmer and developer.
For you, winning a tournament, while gratifying, is secondary to
creating a monster chess engine. That's your gift, talent, strength,
and maybe, destiny.
A MODEST PROPOSAL
-- Maybe we're looking at the development of two distinct types of
computer chess competitions: a "database" competition, where opening
books are unlimited, and an "engine power" competition, where books
would be carefully limited -- or even STANDARDIZED, WITH ALL
COMPETITORS USING THE SAME BOOK -- to provide a level playing field.
Of course, all other *hardware* sports routinely create such mechanical
restrictions, and even "classes", to keep competition fair and
interesting. Formula One racing, America's cup and all sailboat
competition -- in fact all the *hardware* competitions I can think of,
have developed very sophisticated formulas for keeping competition in
carefully-defined boundaries.
Computer chess might well consider doing the same.
Why? All these sports have recognized long ago that only close
competition is interesting. Without such rules, every event becomes a
vigil for a coup d'etat of some kind: you wait to learn which
competitor found the best "cheat" that blows everyone else away.
I think computer chess may be in that very situation now.
If that happens, as your posting of MChess results show, the
competition is no fun at all, and meaningless. Even worse, it could
have a dangerously weakening effect on progress towards the central
issue and problem of computer chess: developing the most powerful
engine possible.
That's the unique arena of computer chess, and the one it should follow
to the exclusion of other tangential concerns.
It's an important goal, and should be protected -- especially by the
participants themselves -- by building safeguards into competitions
that discourage achievement OUTSIDE the computer chess arena that could
come to dominate computer chess as a whole.
The worst result I can see from the present situation is that it could
tend to keep you and others from following your own path and destiny --
that of creating the program which will play the strongest, deepest,
smartest chess that our CPU's are capable of. It would be something of
a tragedy if you and others were deflected from pursuing that
fascinating and exciting goal.
Sorry for the rambling answer -- but I think this may be a very
important issue indeed...
-- garb leon
PS congratulations on Rebel 8 -- I'll be first in line as soon as Rebel
9 is available... gl
Chris Whittington
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>
> Chris Whittington (chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : "Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > A few weeks ago Marty Hirsch (author of Mchess5) wrote:
> : >
> : > "Opening preparation against commercial opponents matters somewhat, but
> : > not as much as one might expect, because an SSDF rating is based on
> : > hundreds of games against at least twenty opponents."
> : >
> : > I replied that at matters AT LEAST 100 ELO points on SSDF.
> : >
> : > I have posted my reply also to Marty's email address so he couldn't miss
> : > my comments. Till now I have not received any reply from Marty. Not here
> : > and not in RGCC.
> : >
> : > In the between time I have started several matches between Mchess5 and a
> : > few chess programs to find out the REAL impact of killer books.
> : >
> : > I find the results very shocking!
> : >
> : > Here are the results against:
> : > Mchess5 - Genius3 (currently no. 1 on SSDF ELO 2420) 7.5 - 2.5
> : > Mchess5 - Rebel6 (currently no. 3 on SSDF ELO 2415) 13.0 - 1.0
> : > Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 (currently no. 9 on SSDF ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
> : >
> : > According to the HIGH ratings of Genius3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3 these
> : > results are IMPOSSIBLE in normal play (without book traps)
> :
> : The answer is simple.
> :
> : Apply a learning function to your program so that it avoids
> : opening lines that it loses.
> :
> : Weight the function so that avoidance is stronger the more
> : recently the game was played.
> :
> : So the 'cooked' program will win some games where your book is
> : busted, but your learning function will 'unbust' your book; and
> : you'll be back to playing random games again.
> :
> : IMHO this feature is a chess strength negative for Mchess.
> : For it to work, Mchess has to have a very narrow and specific book.
> : Anrrow and specific books are very easy to counter attack - the
> : counter does not require a large amount of human intervention.
>
> Not necessarily. Marty could just hook up Rebel and Mchess (or
> any other program for that matter) and let his learning function
> simply "learn" how to beat the other program by culling book lines
> that result in losses and keeping lines that win. It's not elegant,
> but it is simple because it does not take a lot of human time to
> find these oddball lines...
>
Sorry, I didn't explain myself well enough.
That is sort of what it is being alleged he does.
Or, it is alleged that, by hand, he looks for errors in opponent
programs and then programs in (narrow) book lines to try and seek
out these errors.
Conversely, it can be assumed that lines bad for Mchess are avoided.
This, it is alleged, is done by hand prior to release.
I am arguing that this avoidance/reward process can be automated
by the opponent program *after* release by learning and unlearning
book lines as they are played at SSDF testing.
If Rebel (say) loses a SSDF game, it can avoid losing that line
again by diverging on the next SSDF game or later occasion.
So, Rebel can do what Mchess does on-line. Its not so easy for
Mchess to deal with this behaviour *after* release.
Believe me, CST has played long sequences of games with Mchess
with variance (on both sides, since both learn). Never the same
game gets played. Its quite a battle. Either side can get the
better of it, I've seen strings of different wins in the same
basic opening as the opponent program wriggles more each game,
eventually finding the refutation.
It works, this learning. Nobody can book up for a series
of games played this way.
Chris Whittington
tries
Mark Uniacke
Hi,
In article <53ting$n...@news.xs4all.nl>, =?iso-8859-1?q?Ed_Schr=F6der?=
<rebc...@xs4all.nl> writes
>The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
>
>A few weeks ago Marty Hirsch (author of Mchess5) wrote:
>
> "Opening preparation against commercial opponents matters somewhat, but
> not as much as one might expect, because an SSDF rating is based on
> hundreds of games against at least twenty opponents."
>
>I replied that at matters AT LEAST 100 ELO points on SSDF.
Having seen the results I have to agree with you Ed.
>
>I have posted my reply also to Marty's email address so he couldn't miss
>my comments. Till now I have not received any reply from Marty. Not here
>and not in RGCC.
>
>In the between time I have started several matches between Mchess5 and a
>few chess programs to find out the REAL impact of killer books.
>
>I find the results very shocking!
>
>Here are the results against:
>Mchess5 - Genius3 (currently no. 1 on SSDF ELO 2420) 7.5 - 2.5
>Mchess5 - Rebel6 (currently no. 3 on SSDF ELO 2415) 13.0 - 1.0
>Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 (currently no. 9 on SSDF ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
>
>According to the HIGH ratings of Genius3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3 these
>results are IMPOSSIBLE in normal play (without book traps)
These results seem to fit in with the SSDF results. For example,
MChess5 P90 - Hiarcs3 P90 16.5 - 3.5
Remember, that contains 10 white and 10 black games.
It is interesting that Hiarcs4 with a larger and significantly varied
book (with absolutely no "cooks") scores:
MChess5 P90 - Hiarcs4 P90 6.5 - 13.5
While Hiarcs4 is stronger than Hiarcs3, it certainly isn't 396 Elo
(267+129) stronger as indicated by the respective match scores!!
It is obvious from my testing too that MChess5 has a heavily "cooked"
book for Genius2/3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3. Which incidentally were MChess'
main opposition when it was released.
This means there are at least 7 SSDF matches of 20 games each which are
influenced by the killer lines and NOT the relative engines strengths.
There is no doubt in my opinion that killer lines in a cooked book on
this scale will severely affect the SSDF rating of MChess5.
The manor in which these results were achieved is quite shocking.
>
>I have posted all the games in PGN format on a new subject here in RGCC
>in case anybody wants to check them. Just replay the games with Mchess5
>and watch the cooked book lines.
>
>Coming to the GOAL of this posting:
>
>- Is this the future of computer chess?
>- Spending months of our time on cooked books to get a good rating on
>SSDF?
>- Should the programmers of Genius, Hiarcs and Rebel do the same?
>I obvious prefer to spend my time on improving the chess engine of Rebel
>rather than spending months of my time looking for weak points in other
>chess programs and add total won lines to the Rebel opening book!
I have never put killer lines in Hiarcs' opening book for computer
opponents. What limited time I have I prefer to devote to work on the
chess engine.
I belive chess programs should be developed for the users/customers who
are willing to purchase them. It seems some chess programs are being
developed to beat other chess programs as a main priority. Surely this
cannot be right?
>
>Personally I find this behavior disgusting since it hides the truth of the
>real playing strength of a chess program.
>
>But I really wonder if I have any choice left!
>
>What to do?
I think Chris mentioned about learning and this may be the only way
forward for us all. However, it leaves a serious problem with the rating
lists like the SSDF whose accuracy is surely being severely affected,
particularly when new programs released now and in the future get to
play "old" programs like Genius2/3, Hiarcs3 and Rebel6.
I believe such a large number of possible "cooked matches" gives
programs like MChess5 an inflated rating.
>
>Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
>about this subject.
>
>I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
>
Ed, you are not alone.
>Just confused and worried.
>
>- Ed Schroder -
>
>
Regards,
Mark
Author of Hiarcs3, Hiarcs4 and soon Hiarcs5!
Roger Davis
Perhaps the solution to cooked books in tournaments is some adaptation of
Fischer Random Chess... :) Maybe the idea is absurd, I haven't read the
rules Fischer was proposing, but his intention was basically to modify the
rules and bypass the "book" so that the best "engine" could emerge
victorious, right?
---------------
Roger Davis
Robert HYATT
I've seen this happen. In several test suites, positions are found
in the large GM database Crafty has. I have modified the "test"
function to disable the book before it runs a test suite to keep
from fudging the results... One position I remember came from an
old Cray Blitz vs Belle game, (ACM 1981 in fact) where the solution
is Bxh6 which leads to a draw. It's in the database. :)
Bob
On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Pete Nielsen wrote:
--> I think you may have to factor in time pressure as well.
-->
--> I don't know if you're familiar with the Internet Chess Academy, but you
--> get a puzzle followed shortly by a lecture on the solution and how that
--> solution should have been found.
-->
--> Often after finding my solution, I give the position to Crafty to see
--what
--> it thinks. Recently, It gave one answer (Book). It turned out in the
--> lecture that the possition was from a GM vs GM game, and that the reason
--> that the move was good, was because of time pressure.
-->
Komputer Korner
Ed Schr=F6der wrote:
> snipped
> Coming to the GOAL of this posting:
> - Is this the future of computer chess?
> - Spending months of our time on cooked books to get a good rating on
> SSDF?
> - Should the programmers of Genius, Hiarcs and Rebel do the same?
> =
> I obvious prefer to spend my time on improving the chess engine of Rebel
> rather than spending months of my time looking for weak points in other
> chess programs and add total won lines to the Rebel opening book!
> =
> Personally I find this behavior disgusting since it hides the truth of th=
e
> real playing strength of a chess program.
> =
> But I really wonder if I have any choice left!
> =
> What to do?
> =
> Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
> about this subject.
> =
> I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
> =
> Just confused and worried.
> =
> - Ed Schroder -
I have already stated that if the computer chess programmers would sell
updated cooked medium rare "killer books on a regular basis, that these
would actually sell. Don't underestimate the consumer's capacity to want
to have the latest killer book for his program. But maybe my ICU is =
fried by now and my circuits are overheating. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
OH OH, My circuits ARE overheating caused by the thought of having to
absorb all those new killer books. =
-- =
Komputer Korner
Chris Whittington
Peter Mckone <pet...@loc3.tandem.com> wrote:
>
> Ed Schröder wrote:
> >
> > The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
>
>
> > In the between time I have started several matches between Mchess5 and a
> > few chess programs to find out the REAL impact of killer books.
> >
> > I find the results very shocking!
> >
> > Here are the results against:
> > Mchess5 - Genius3 (currently no. 1 on SSDF ELO 2420) 7.5 - 2.5
> > Mchess5 - Rebel6 (currently no. 3 on SSDF ELO 2415) 13.0 - 1.0
> > Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 (currently no. 9 on SSDF ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
> >
> > According to the HIGH ratings of Genius3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3 these
> > results are IMPOSSIBLE in normal play (without book traps)
> >
> > I think you all now can see the impact of killer lines and maybe you
> > understand my feelings better and my aversion against cooked books.
>
>
> > What to do?
> >
> > Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
> > about this subject.
> >
> > I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
> >
> > Just confused and worried.
> >
> > - Ed Schroder -
>
> same opening twice, and that it plays different variations when it
> does repeat an opening.
Don't agree. I've played autoplayer sequences against Rebel (in -A)
mode, where the same game gets repeated over and over. I've seen
9 identical sequential draws often.
In normal autoplayer mode, rebel will just throw out a repeat
if its an identical on book exit. For obvious reasons the SSDF can't use
this mode since they can't allow Rebel to just abort games.
The problem is a technical one.
Ed wants to deal with repeats, So he aborts if the game repeats
out of *his* opening book. Fine against a non-learner, but not
fine against a learner. Ed knows about this problem, and its up to
us programmers to deal with it. I think its best dealt with by us
all using learning.
Then its an arms race which will lead back to programs being
unable to rely on killer lines.
Really, if we all use learning, then iuts a non-problem.
Chris Whittington
> Could this be the way to defeat the
> killer books? When GMs play a match they also try to find flaws
> in their opponent's openings, and when they suspect that they are
> approaching a prepared line, they play something that they haven't
> played previously. Computers don't neet to always play the move
> which they evaluate highest. Randomly playing second or third best,
> when the scores are close, would do a lot to dodge the killer books
> and to make the program more fun to play against. Altering the
> opening book a little for each tournamant also seems prudent.
> Putting some bad moves in your commercial book for Mchess to find
> and then removing them for tournaments might be amusing.
> Finding flaws in your opponents' openings, and dodging prepared traps
> is an interesting part of chess, don't you think?
>
> .... Peter McKone
Alexander Fuchs
Ed Schröder <rebc...@xs4all.nl> schrieb im Beitrag
<53ting$n...@news.xs4all.nl>...
> The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
>
> A few weeks ago Marty Hirsch (author of Mchess5) wrote:
>
> "Opening preparation against commercial opponents matters somewhat, but
> not as much as one might expect, because an SSDF rating is based on
> hundreds of games against at least twenty opponents."
>
> I replied that at matters AT LEAST 100 ELO points on SSDF.
>
> I have posted my reply also to Marty's email address so he couldn't miss
> my comments. Till now I have not received any reply from Marty. Not here
> and not in RGCC.
>
> In the between time I have started several matches between Mchess5 and a
> few chess programs to find out the REAL impact of killer books.
>
> I find the results very shocking!
>
> Here are the results against:
> Mchess5 - Genius3 (currently no. 1 on SSDF ELO 2420) 7.5 - 2.5
> Mchess5 - Rebel6 (currently no. 3 on SSDF ELO 2415) 13.0 - 1.0
> Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 (currently no. 9 on SSDF ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
>
> According to the HIGH ratings of Genius3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3 these
> results are IMPOSSIBLE in normal play (without book traps)
>
> I think you all now can see the impact of killer lines and maybe you
> understand my feelings better and my aversion against cooked books.
[large cut]
Thanks a lot for this nice illustration of the impact of killer books.
I agree 100% with you.
I love testing chess programs, but these killer books really make me lose
interest in computer chess. It has nothing to do with chess.
It is necessary that a) the SSDF changes their testing methods. They should
have a large set of opening positions (maybe positions after 7-10 moves)
with open and closed positions in the right proportion. They should play
each position twice and switch the colours after the first game. Opening
books should be turned off. These positions should be kept secret so that
there will be no return of booking.
b) ICCA should modify their rules for their championships. Ed Schroeder has
clearly expressed his reasons why he did not participate in Jarkata. Maybe
Richard Lang had similar reasons. - Genius is often considered as a
reference and their might be a lot of cooks against the Genius book.
The fact that a top program like Rebel does not compete should really make
the ICCA reflect about their rules.
Again: Cooking books does not make computer chess advance although it may
be very tempting because it means easy SSDF points and good sales.
Alexander Fuchs
Kevin James Begley
Mark Uniacke (ma...@acc-ltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I have never put killer lines in Hiarcs' opening book for computer
: opponents. What limited time I have I prefer to devote to work on the
: chess engine.
: I belive chess programs should be developed for the users/customers who
: are willing to purchase them. It seems some chess programs are being
: developed to beat other chess programs as a main priority. Surely this
: cannot be right?
I happen to think that killer-lines should be encouraged. They only
demonstrate how sensitive computer's are to opening traps. Human's
have long had to contend with preperation, and with databases so
widespread, it's only getting worse. The side-effect of all this is
that to be good at chess, one must be extremely well prepared.
Some of you programmers are starting to sound like you'd like to
switch to Fischer's-Random-Chess to level the playing field. Kind
of funny that you're all upset that you've been dupped by your
own invention. Face facts, if you "turn-off" your opening-books,
your machines are very likely to stumble into some very, very
bad positions. So, live by the sword, die by the sword.
As for the issue of consumer's being fooled, I suggest that they be
educated about some standardized benchmarks (I'll let y'all agree
on which bench-mark should be used).
In competition, anything legal is fair. There's no good reason why
someone should refuse to take advantage of their opponent's weakness
in the opening. Rather than crying about how unfair it is to be
defeated by an inferior opponent, I suggest you start recognising
that a weakness of yours has been revealed (be thankful that this
was an easily identifiable weakness that your opponent preyed upon!).
Of course, we all realize that such a weakness is difficult to repair,
and most will confess that it leads only to an arms-race approach to
opening theory. When the majority of tournament players are willing to
concede that this kind of preperation is no longer enjoyable, I (for one)
will gladly follow them over to Fischer's variation of chess, but I doubt
very much that such a migration will occur in the near future -- it is
against every strong player's interest to do so (save maybe RJF).
Kevin.
Chris Whittington
da...@laraby.tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
>
> Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
>
> : I have posted my reply also to Marty's email address so he couldn't miss
> : my comments. Till now I have not received any reply from Marty. Not here
> : and not in RGCC.
>
> doesn't even respond to posts that ask for information, such as the one I
> posted about the 10MB Hash table limit. Apparently, he, like Steve at
> ICD, figures that the less said, the sooner the thread will drop.
>
> Wrong.
This is completely unreasonable.
Nobody *has* to respond to anything.
There are many programmers whose products get mentioned on rgcc
or who get emailed and who don't reply. That's just their way.
Its the height of arrogance to imagine rgcc is some kind of
god-forum where anyone and everyone has to explain themselves.
Chris Whittington
Ed Schröder
Kevin,
You are missing the point of the discussion!
The issue is that SSDF allows to test "book cooking" chess programs
against older chess programs who CAN NOT defend themselves.
These "book cooking" programs therefore gain a LOT of ELO points on the
SSDF rating list!! and therefore the rating of "book cooking" programs
ARE NOT RELIABLE.
At the moment the only "book cooking" program is Mchess5.
I have explained this in detail in my previous posting including a lot
of examples and complete games.
I am just worried about this new development, we *ALL* want a SSDF list
with the STRONGEST chess program on TOP. No?
As I producer myself I surely hope that this will be my own program, no
doubt about that, but I prefer a reliable no.1 on SSDF and I don't care
if that is one of my concurrents as long as it is reliable!
For years this was the ChessMachine The King;
For years this was Genius3;
Both programs were the strongest at that moment!
I have NO problems with Mchess, Genius, Hiarcs, Crafty, Schredder on TOP
of SSDF as long as the rating and the no.1 position is earned by the
STRONGEST chess engine.
Unfortunately this has been not been the case in the past year and
this is the main reason for our discussion.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
- Ed Schroder -
From: kjbe...@chimi.engr.ucdavis.edu (Kevin James Begley)
Mark Uniacke (ma...@acc-ltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I have never put killer lines in Hiarcs' opening book for computer
: opponents. What limited time I have I prefer to devote to work on the
: chess engine.
: I belive chess programs should be developed for the users/customers who
: are willing to purchase them. It seems some chess programs are being
: developed to beat other chess programs as a main priority. Surely this
: cannot be right?
>I happen to think that killer-lines should be encouraged. They only
Alastair Scott
On 14 Oct 1996 20:39:44 GMT, ga...@ix.netcom.com(Garby Leon) wrote:
[snip]
>A MODEST PROPOSAL
>
>-- Maybe we're looking at the development of two distinct types of
>computer chess competitions: a "database" competition, where opening
>books are unlimited, and an "engine power" competition, where books
>would be carefully limited -- or even STANDARDIZED, WITH ALL
>COMPETITORS USING THE SAME BOOK -- to provide a level playing field.
[snip]
There are some excellent points here.
The fundamental problem is that, no matter what tests are used, somebody
will find some way of biassing them. I remember (from an old Selective
Search) a test position where a program found the solution instantly yet,
when a completely irrelevant pawn was moved from h2 to h3 and the program
retested, it failed. Ditto standardised book lines - what would stop someone
adding special behaviour to their program if they discovered a weakness in
the way a prospective opponent handled one of those lines?
I suggest a draconian (anti-sleaze?) solution: that computer versus
computer, or computer-only tests, are disallowed for rating purposes (by
SSDF, Eric Hallsworth and so on), and that human versus computer games only
are considered. Remember that _people_ operate computers, write programs and
buy them.
Alastair
Alastair Scott
That would solve all the problems - except that people buy chess programs to
play chess, not to play Fischerandom.
It's a bit like deciding the English Premiership by giving Newcastle United
and Manchester United a bag of golf clubs each and asking them to play
eighteen holes! (Apologies for the football/soccer analogy).
Alastair
Robert Hyatt
Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: From: Mark Uniacke <ma...@acc-ltd.demon.co.uk>
:
:
: :
: : "Opening preparation against commercial opponents matters somewhat, but
: : not as much as one might expect, because an SSDF rating is based on
: : hundreds of games against at least twenty opponents."
: :
: :I replied that at matters AT LEAST 100 ELO points on SSDF.
:
: >Having seen the results I have to agree with you Ed.
: Thank you for backing me up Mark, at least I know that I am not
: alone now.
:
: [ snip ]
:
: >It is obvious from my testing too that MChess5 has a heavily "cooked"
: >book for Genius2/3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3. Which incidentally were MChess'
: >main opposition when it was released.
: >This means there are at least 7 SSDF matches of 20 games each which are
: >influenced by the killer lines and NOT the relative engines strengths.
: >There is no doubt in my opinion that killer lines in a cooked book on
: >this scale will severely affect the SSDF rating of MChess5.
: Unfortunately I have to agree.
: I have the same results and the same conclusions as Mark.
:
: [ snip ]
:
: :Coming to the GOAL of this posting:
: :
: :- Is this the future of computer chess?
: :- Spending months of our time on cooked books to get a good rating on
: :SSDF?
: :- Should the programmers of Genius, Hiarcs and Rebel do the same?
:
: :I obvious prefer to spend my time on improving the chess engine of Rebel
: :rather than spending months of my time looking for weak points in other
: :chess programs and add total won lines to the Rebel opening book!
:
: >I have never put killer lines in Hiarcs' opening book for computer
: >opponents. What limited time I have I prefer to devote to work on the
: >chess engine.
: >I belive chess programs should be developed for the users/customers who
: >are willing to purchase them. It seems some chess programs are being
: >developed to beat other chess programs as a main priority. Surely this
: >cannot be right?
: Corect, I have never seen any cooked book lines in Hiarcs3/4, neither
: did I found any cooked lines in Genius2/3/4. Just Like Rebel, Hiarcs
: and Genius opening books are written for humans and I am in favor to
: keep it that way!!
:
: :What to do?
:
: >I think Chris mentioned about learning and this may be the only way
: >forward for us all. However, it leaves a serious problem with the rating
: >lists like the SSDF whose accuracy is surely being severely affected,
: >particularly when new programs released now and in the future get to
: >play "old" programs like Genius2/3, Hiarcs3 and Rebel6.
: >I believe such a large number of possible "cooked matches" gives
: >programs like MChess5 an inflated rating.
: I agree, with or without learning, book cooking gains a lot of ELO points
: especially when SSDF test older versions which does not have a learning
: system. These older versions:
: - Genius 2.0
: - Genius 3.0
: - Hiarcs 3.0
: - Rebel 6.0
I think this is a problem that (a) has been here a long time; and (b) will
be around for a long time. I remember a "meeting" years ago with Ken Thompson,
Mike Valvo and myself, in a tournament hall somewhere, where ken showed us an
opening that would trap most any computer. He sprang it on NuChess and crushed
it in an ACM event. Do I like getting trapped? no. Do I like trapping
someone else? yes. :)
In any case, a standard starting position would be a start, although it would
certainly weaken some engines like Genius that play certain openings very
well and others poorly. That's about the only down-side to randomly choosing
the starting position. If you pick one that one program doesn't understand
or like, it could also be unfair...
Needs thought...
Bob
Ed Schröder
From: Mark Uniacke <ma...@acc-ltd.demon.co.uk>
:A few weeks ago Marty Hirsch (author of Mchess5) wrote:
:
: "Opening preparation against commercial opponents matters somewhat, but
: not as much as one might expect, because an SSDF rating is based on
: hundreds of games against at least twenty opponents."
:
:I replied that at matters AT LEAST 100 ELO points on SSDF.
>Having seen the results I have to agree with you Ed.
Thank you for backing me up Mark, at least I know that I am not
alone now.
[ snip ]
>It is obvious from my testing too that MChess5 has a heavily "cooked"
>book for Genius2/3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3. Which incidentally were MChess'
>main opposition when it was released.
>This means there are at least 7 SSDF matches of 20 games each which are
>influenced by the killer lines and NOT the relative engines strengths.
>There is no doubt in my opinion that killer lines in a cooked book on
>this scale will severely affect the SSDF rating of MChess5.
Unfortunately I have to agree.
I have the same results and the same conclusions as Mark.
[ snip ]
:Coming to the GOAL of this posting:
:
:- Is this the future of computer chess?
:- Spending months of our time on cooked books to get a good rating on
:SSDF?
:- Should the programmers of Genius, Hiarcs and Rebel do the same?
:I obvious prefer to spend my time on improving the chess engine of Rebel
:rather than spending months of my time looking for weak points in other
:chess programs and add total won lines to the Rebel opening book!
>I have never put killer lines in Hiarcs' opening book for computer
>opponents. What limited time I have I prefer to devote to work on the
>chess engine.
>I belive chess programs should be developed for the users/customers who
>are willing to purchase them. It seems some chess programs are being
>developed to beat other chess programs as a main priority. Surely this
>cannot be right?
Corect, I have never seen any cooked book lines in Hiarcs3/4, neither
did I found any cooked lines in Genius2/3/4. Just Like Rebel, Hiarcs
and Genius opening books are written for humans and I am in favor to
keep it that way!!
:What to do?
>I think Chris mentioned about learning and this may be the only way
>forward for us all. However, it leaves a serious problem with the rating
>lists like the SSDF whose accuracy is surely being severely affected,
>particularly when new programs released now and in the future get to
>play "old" programs like Genius2/3, Hiarcs3 and Rebel6.
>I believe such a large number of possible "cooked matches" gives
>programs like MChess5 an inflated rating.
I agree, with or without learning, book cooking gains a lot of ELO points
especially when SSDF test older versions which does not have a learning
system. These older versions:
- Genius 2.0
- Genius 3.0
- Hiarcs 3.0
- Rebel 6.0
and soon
- Genius 4.0
- Hiarcs 4.0
- Rebel 7.0
are easy victims for "cooked lines".
No defense possible!
:Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
:about this subject.
:I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
>Ed, you are not alone.
Great!
>Regards,
> Mark
>Author of Hiarcs3, Hiarcs4 and soon Hiarcs5!
- Ed Schroder -
Author of Rebel8
graham_laight
Everybody in Europe always seems to want protectionist measures at the first
sniff of competition. I wish we could be more like the USA.
How do you expect consumers around the world to judge programs except by looking
at tables?
Is everybody expected to make deep studies every time they buy a USD100 product?
My opinion is that, if you can't compete, and you stand and complain noisily
about it, you make yourself look weak. I personally think that it is not good
to present yourself to the world with the word "victim" stamped upon your
forehead.
In article <53ting$n...@news.xs4all.nl>, "Ed says...
Don Fong
In article <53urm3$n...@news-central.tiac.net>,|: I have posted my reply also to Marty's email address so he couldn't miss
|: my comments. Till now I have not received any reply from Marty. Not here
|: and not in RGCC.
|
|doesn't even respond to posts that ask for information, such as the one I
|posted about the 10MB Hash table limit.
maybe he's just too busy. or maybe he's on vacation.
or maybe he just doesn't think your questions are worth
responding to. believe it or not, the world does not revolve
around RGCC.
|Apparently, he, like Steve at
|ICD, figures that the less said, the sooner the thread will drop.
|
| Wrong.
i can't speak for Hirsch, but if it were me, i would not
dignify that kind of insulting drivel with -any- kind of response,
just on principle.
--
--- don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
--
john quill taylor
da...@laraby.tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
>Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
>: I have posted my reply also to Marty's email address so he couldn't miss
>: my comments. Till now I have not received any reply from Marty. Not here
>: and not in RGCC.
> Marty Hirsch does not respond to posts that he doesn't like. He
>doesn't even respond to posts that ask for information, such as the one I
>posted about the 10MB Hash table limit. Apparently, he, like Steve at
>ICD, figures that the less said, the sooner the thread will drop.
> Wrong.
I'm just a lowly "D" player out here in Idaho, yet Marty has answered
virtually all of my e-mail inquiries. It looks _so_ unprofessional to
see him attacked in this newsgroup. Can't we just face it that all
"book" knowledge and opening theory is an admission of our weakness,
whether we're a human or a computer program? If we extol a program
because it has the ability to find an elusive draw, we must also
give credit to the program that has a better book. Rather than
"steaming" here about how bad it is, I would politely ask that the
programmers go and remove those "cookable" weaknesses from your books!
Your book is only as strong as its weakest link, and M-Chess has
proven to be a very tough chain to crack. Do you want to have a
tournament with "all books off," or play the game as we currently
know it?
__
john quill taylor / /\
writer at large / / \
Hewlett-Packard, Storage Systems Division __ /_/ /\ \
Boise, Idaho U.S.A. /_/\ __\ \ \_\ \
e-mail: jqta...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com \ \ \/ /\\ \ \/ /
Telephone: (208) 396-2328 (MDT = GMT - 6) \ \ \/ \\ \ /
Snail Mail: Hewlett-Packard \ \ /\ \\ \ \
11413 Chinden Blvd \ \ \ \ \\ \ \
Boise, Idaho 83714 \ \ \_\/ \ \ \
Mailstop 852 \ \ \ \_\/
\_\/
"When in doubt, do as doubters do." - jqt -
haiti, rwanda, cuba, bosnia, ... we have a list,
where is our schindler?
Robert Hyatt
john quill taylor (jqta...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com) wrote:: >: I have posted my reply also to Marty's email address so he couldn't miss
: >: my comments. Till now I have not received any reply from Marty. Not here
: >: and not in RGCC.
: > Marty Hirsch does not respond to posts that he doesn't like. He
: >posted about the 10MB Hash table limit. Apparently, he, like Steve at
: >ICD, figures that the less said, the sooner the thread will drop.
:
: > Wrong.
:
: I'm just a lowly "D" player out here in Idaho, yet Marty has answered
: virtually all of my e-mail inquiries. It looks _so_ unprofessional to
: see him attacked in this newsgroup. Can't we just face it that all
: "book" knowledge and opening theory is an admission of our weakness,
: whether we're a human or a computer program? If we extol a program
: because it has the ability to find an elusive draw, we must also
: give credit to the program that has a better book. Rather than
: "steaming" here about how bad it is, I would politely ask that the
: programmers go and remove those "cookable" weaknesses from your books!
:
: Your book is only as strong as its weakest link, and M-Chess has
: proven to be a very tough chain to crack. Do you want to have a
: tournament with "all books off," or play the game as we currently
: know it?
:
: __
I agree.
Between the hyperbole and personal attacks, there's not much room left
for useful information here. :)
Bob
Enrique Irazoqui
> Kevin,
> From: kjbe...@chimi.engr.ucdavis.edu (Kevin James Begley)
> Mark Uniacke (ma...@acc-ltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
1- Mchess 5 has a killer-book that makes it crush Genius 3, Rebel 6 and
Hiarcs 3.
2- Because of this killer book Mchess's rating in the SSDF list has been or
is quite a bit higher than its chess engine would have achieved otherwise.
3- To the extent that they reflect the results of games, sometimes even
double games, won by cooked opening lines, the ratings given by SSDF do
not reflect the real strength of a chess engine, and therefore in some
specific cases they are misleading consumers that pay attention to this
rating list before making a buying decision and they are giving top honors
where top honors are not due.
4- A different rating procedure should be followed if we want to know and
let people know the relative strength of chess engines.
Whether or not the inclusion of cooked lines in the opening book is a fair
approach, it may morally be a matter of opinion. In practical terms what I
find not arguable is that "killer books" give a false idea of the real
strength of a chess engine.
Enrique
Alexander Fuchs
john quill taylor <jqta...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> schrieb im Beitrag
<540fqj$l...@hpbs2500.boi.hp.com>...
> da...@laraby.tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
>
> >Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
>
>
> Your book is only as strong as its weakest link, and M-Chess has
> proven to be a very tough chain to crack.
The book of M-Chess Pro can be cooked like any other book.
Do you want to have a
> tournament with "all books off," or play the game as we currently
> know it?
I'd prefer that rather than see computer chess reduced to cooking books
Alexander Fuchs
Joe Stella
Maybe someone in this newsgroup presented themselves this way but I
certainly don't remember it. I do remember the question being asked
was "What should I do next to improve my program; killer book or
stronger chess engine?"
A stronger chess engine is what most customers really want to buy,
but the trouble is, killer books can make an engine look stronger than
it really is.
Maybe a good learning algorithm that can develop such books during
auto-play mode is one answer. That way, authors can still devote
most of their time to improving the chess engine.
I don't know if this is the best answer or not, or even if there
is a good answer; but in any case, let's get the question straight!
Joe Stella
> Graham Laight wrote:
>[...]
Kevin James Begley
Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
<snip : many very good points>
Ed,
I agree w/ most everything you say,
except I fail to see how you can get
rid of killer-books.
As already pointed out, Fischerandom is
not an adequate solution, nor is having
the opening books turned off (there is
virtually NO WAY to assure that the evaluation-
function does not assure a "cooked" opening
anyway).
I suggest the consumer rely upon a benchmark
rather than the results of competition if they
are interested in purchasing the "strongest"
chess program (rather than the "best in competition").
Meanwhile, I maintain that MChess5 has done nothing
unethical -- this aspect of competition has been
too long neglected (though certainly it has always
been present, if only in a more subtle form). I
think it's about time that the anti-computer computer
emerges. I'd have tried to equip it with a way to
take advantage of the opponent's horizon-effect.
Victory need not always go to the strongest, and I
happen to admire the MChess5 team for taking Lasker's
advice (PLAY THE MAN!). There's a certain amount of
irony and justice to it all -- like when lawyers first
started suing other lawyers.
Kevin.
-Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Hi Kevin,
I don't want to comment your taste of chess programs. If you like having a
program which gets many, many points in the Swedish list - where they
aren't even willing to do such a primitive thing as killing doubles - you
will of course buy the program which is so nice in "cooking" just according
to your kind of taste in chess and simlpy has a "cooked" rating as well
according to the facts.
For me it's something completely else: My only interest is that in the
playing style and playing strength of a program (and as long as strength is
ok - not necesarily best - I'm looking at style in first place).
Mchess would be an attractive program without killer booking as well,
although I doubt it ever was strong enough for the first place in the
Swedish list. It was simply perfect for the Swedish way of testing :-)))
But the only reason why I bought it is the remaining playing strength and
style after diregarding the whole cooking. It's okay for me if a
programmer's team adopts the book to the playing style: not anything
more!!!
So I'm definitely not interested in this kind of programming and if it goes
on like this it will sooner or later have influence on my decision: simply
not to buy this kind of programs any more.
By the way: the learning function regularly produces more stupid stuff than
interesting games.
If you ever saw the variations on one variation produced by two computers,
the results are in my eyes in 80% of the games boring, in 15% ridiculous
and in 5% interesting. I'm simply not interested in this kind of opening
études either.
All in all: I'm happy to see the real playing strength and style of
programs after
a) switching off learning functions immediately
b) using variety books instead of tornament book
c) playing tournaments with certain openings for black and white and then
switching off beoth books.
Yours Dirk!
--
Yours Dirk
Kevin James Begley <kjbe...@chimi.engr.ucdavis.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
<53un7s$r...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
> Mark Uniacke (ma...@acc-ltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : I have never put killer lines in Hiarcs' opening book for computer
> : opponents. What limited time I have I prefer to devote to work on the
> : chess engine.
> : I belive chess programs should be developed for the users/customers who
> : are willing to purchase them. It seems some chess programs are being
> : developed to beat other chess programs as a main priority. Surely this
> : cannot be right?
>
chessman
I made a comment before about this topic...I just want to add that Marty is
perfectly within his rights to design a chess program as he see fits...with
or without killer books....it's up to the SSDF whether or not they want to
continue testing in the same manner ... perhaps there should be two lists
..one with book on and one with book off/or from a random start positions
(not the Fischer start ,...but chosing postions at random from GM games...
have the programs play from both sides.. as it stands now the current
systems is subject to abuse...maybe misuse is the word...oh well..it's up
to the SSDF ..not Marty ....he's not doing anything wrong
Eran
Mark Rawlings wrote:
>
> Ian Harris <i...@iharris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article: <53ting$n...@news.xs4all.nl> "Ed Schr?der" <rebc...@xs4all.nl>
> writes:
>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Personally I find this behavior disgusting since it hides the truth of the
> >> real playing strength of a chess program.
> >>
> >> But I really wonder if I have any choice left!
> >>
> >> What to do?
> >>
> >> Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
> >> about this subject.
> >>
> >> I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
> >>
> >> Just confused and worried.
> >>
> >> - Ed Schroder -
> >>
>
>
> >The problem is in getting ALL progammers to agree amongst themselves that
> >"killer moves" should not be placed into the book - if this cannot be done
> >then I'm afraid you are left with having to join in.
>
> >--
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ian Harris EMail i...@iharris.demon.co.uk or CompuServe 70374,3166
> > PGP 2.6.3i public key available on request
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Somehow this doesn't make sense to me. Why is it wrong to put a book
> move in a program which wins the game? Sure, it hides the true
> strength of the chess engine, but there are other ways to test just
> the engine. (test suites, etc.)
>
> Maybe shortly after MChess6 comes out, Ed should come out with a
> revised Rebel Book that refutes all of the MChess6 killer moves... ;)
>
> Mark
That's a great idea! Ed should be motivated to improve Rebel Book to
refute all of the Mchess6 killer moves. :)
Eran
Eran
Ed Schröder wrote:
>
Hi,
I suggest that maybe all of you, chess programmers who don't like
killer-book, establish an honest, international organization where
computer chess tests can be made most accurate and reliable results. For
example, a name for the new international organization can be
"International Computer Chess Standard." It is where all computer chess
tests must meet strict standard requirements where killer-book is not
allowed, for instance. All chess programmers can be members of that
organization and can vote equally what yes and what not allow to include
anything such as killer-book in strict standard. So, I hope this make
all chess programmers satisfied and happy. Furthermore, creating newer
chess programs should meet "International Computer Chess Standard"
requirements, because this also helps customers all over the world to
buy correct chess software happily without confusion. I understand that
SSDF may be no longer reliable, because the computer chess tests are in
poor and unfair condition; maybe this condition is too liberal and not
strict enough. Therefore, I think establishing a new strict and honest
organization is a very good idea, it will solve many problems in both
computer chess tests and chess software and clear any confusion among
chess programmers and customers alike.
Eran
> From: Mark Uniacke <ma...@acc-ltd.demon.co.uk>
>
> :A few weeks ago Marty Hirsch (author of Mchess5) wrote:
> :
> : "Opening preparation against commercial opponents matters somewhat, but
> : not as much as one might expect, because an SSDF rating is based on
> : hundreds of games against at least twenty opponents."
> :
> :I replied that at matters AT LEAST 100 ELO points on SSDF.
>
> >Having seen the results I have to agree with you Ed.
>
> Thank you for backing me up Mark, at least I know that I am not
> alone now.
>
> [ snip ]
>
> >It is obvious from my testing too that MChess5 has a heavily "cooked"
> >book for Genius2/3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3. Which incidentally were MChess'
> >main opposition when it was released.
> >This means there are at least 7 SSDF matches of 20 games each which are
> >influenced by the killer lines and NOT the relative engines strengths.
> >There is no doubt in my opinion that killer lines in a cooked book on
> >this scale will severely affect the SSDF rating of MChess5.
>
> Unfortunately I have to agree.
> I have the same results and the same conclusions as Mark.
>
> [ snip ]
>
> :Coming to the GOAL of this posting:
> :
> :- Is this the future of computer chess?
> :- Spending months of our time on cooked books to get a good rating on
> :SSDF?
> :- Should the programmers of Genius, Hiarcs and Rebel do the same?
>
> :I obvious prefer to spend my time on improving the chess engine of Rebel
> :rather than spending months of my time looking for weak points in other
> :chess programs and add total won lines to the Rebel opening book!
>
> >I have never put killer lines in Hiarcs' opening book for computer
> >opponents. What limited time I have I prefer to devote to work on the
> >chess engine.
> >I belive chess programs should be developed for the users/customers who
> >are willing to purchase them. It seems some chess programs are being
> >developed to beat other chess programs as a main priority. Surely this
> >cannot be right?
>
> Corect, I have never seen any cooked book lines in Hiarcs3/4, neither
> did I found any cooked lines in Genius2/3/4. Just Like Rebel, Hiarcs
> and Genius opening books are written for humans and I am in favor to
> keep it that way!!
>
> :What to do?
>
> >I think Chris mentioned about learning and this may be the only way
> >forward for us all. However, it leaves a serious problem with the rating
> >lists like the SSDF whose accuracy is surely being severely affected,
> >particularly when new programs released now and in the future get to
> >play "old" programs like Genius2/3, Hiarcs3 and Rebel6.
> >I believe such a large number of possible "cooked matches" gives
> >programs like MChess5 an inflated rating.
>
> I agree, with or without learning, book cooking gains a lot of ELO points
> especially when SSDF test older versions which does not have a learning
> system. These older versions:
> - Genius 2.0
> - Genius 3.0
> - Hiarcs 3.0
> - Rebel 6.0
>
> and soon
>
> - Genius 4.0
> - Hiarcs 4.0
> - Rebel 7.0
>
> are easy victims for "cooked lines".
> No defense possible!
>
> :Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
> :about this subject.
> :I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
>
> >Ed, you are not alone.
>
> Great!
>
> >Regards,
> > Mark
>
> >Author of Hiarcs3, Hiarcs4 and soon Hiarcs5!
>
A.Mader
Komputer Korner wrote:
>
> Ed Schröder wrote:
> > snipped
> > Coming to the GOAL of this posting:
> >
> > - Is this the future of computer chess?
> > - Spending months of our time on cooked books to get a good rating on
> > SSDF?
> > - Should the programmers of Genius, Hiarcs and Rebel do the same?
> >
> > I obvious prefer to spend my time on improving the chess engine of Rebel
> > rather than spending months of my time looking for weak points in other
> > chess programs and add total won lines to the Rebel opening book!
> >
> > real playing strength of a chess program.
> >
> > But I really wonder if I have any choice left!
> >
> > What to do?
> >
> > about this subject.
> >
> > I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
> >
> >
> > - Ed Schroder -
>
> updated cooked medium rare "killer books on a regular basis, that these
> would actually sell. Don't underestimate the consumer's capacity to want
> to have the latest killer book for his program. But maybe my ICU is
> OH OH, My circuits ARE overheating caused by the thought of having to
> absorb all those new killer books.
> Komputer Korner
I think we have to be careful. The opening is a very important part of
the game and therefore is a good opening book a very important part of a
chess program. Everybody is trying to make programs more "human like"
and I often read attacks against the bad bad brute forcers. It IS human
like to study openings, learn them by heart and trying to fool your
opponent with opening tricks. Sure it is disgusting to study an
opponents opening book and use cooked books, but what's wrong about a
GOOD opening book without any cooking? Is it also disgusting to use
endgame databases? At what point is an opening a "killer variant"?
I can understand Ed's feelings, but I also understand e.g. Alex Kures
feelings. He (and some others) worked for 2 years to make a good opening
book for Nimzo (without any cooked variations). His work would have been
in vain if only "pure" chess engines are allowed in further
competitions.
Just a few thoughts of my own....
Andreas Mader
Mark Rawlings
Ian Harris <i...@iharris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article: <53ting$n...@news.xs4all.nl> "Ed Schr?der" <rebc...@xs4all.nl>
writes:
>> <snip>
>>
>> Personally I find this behavior disgusting since it hides the truth of the
>> real playing strength of a chess program.
>>
>> But I really wonder if I have any choice left!
>>
>> What to do?
>>
>> Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
>> about this subject.
>>
>> I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
>>
>> Just confused and worried.
>>
>> - Ed Schroder -
>>
>I, for one, am in full agreement with your view, Ed.
Robert Hyatt
Dirk Frickenschmidt (di...@jimknopf.wupper.de) wrote:
: Hi Kevin,
:
: I don't want to comment your taste of chess programs. If you like having a
: program which gets many, many points in the Swedish list - where they
: aren't even willing to do such a primitive thing as killing doubles - you
: will of course buy the program which is so nice in "cooking" just according
: to your kind of taste in chess and simlpy has a "cooked" rating as well
: according to the facts.
While we are on this subject, I want to "shift gears" a second. If you
are trying to figure out which program is best, you are using the wrong
metric if by "best" you mean "the program most likely to perform best
against a strong human opponent."
If you want the program that can produce the highest ICC/FICS/whatever
rating, by *only* playing other computers, the SSDF rating is ideal and
this is exactly what it shows... how the programs will stack up against
each other.
If you want a program that produces the highest quality chess against a
human opponent, that's another matter, and has to be measured in a different
way, namely by real USCF or FIDE ratings. Since there are very few USCF
events for computers to participate in, and since a FIDE computer membership
is astronomically expensive, you don't have that option. Your only real
choice is to take advantage of the computers on the servers, play them, ask
the operators what program they are using, and then make up your mind as to
which program you like. You'll likely find that each has different
characteristics that you may like/dislike.
If you look at your needs honestly, you'll likely decide that the "engine"
is not the whole package, otherwise you could not sell a Saturn automobile.
The GUI is also important and will make the program either more enjoyable
or a miserable opponent, depending on how well you like the GUI, how easy
it is to use, and whether it supports the things you want to use it for.
In short, the SSDF is but one data point you should use in selecting the
right program for you. treat it like buying a car. Certainly you'd test-
drive before making up your mind I'd hope? Ditto for a hess program...
:
: For me it's something completely else: My only interest is that in the
: playing style and playing strength of a program (and as long as strength is
: ok - not necesarily best - I'm looking at style in first place).
Good point. One of my old favorites was Dave Kittingers SuperConstellation
that would play speculative attacking sacrifices. You had to watch h7 with
a careful eye. :) Most programs nowadays don't behave like this. I did
have a pretty marvelous version of Crafty a few months back that was attacking
left and right. Lost too many games however, but the "style" was quite
flamboyant... almost Tal-like.
:
: Mchess would be an attractive program without killer booking as well,
: although I doubt it ever was strong enough for the first place in the
: Swedish list. It was simply perfect for the Swedish way of testing :-)))
: But the only reason why I bought it is the remaining playing strength and
: style after diregarding the whole cooking. It's okay for me if a
: programmer's team adopts the book to the playing style: not anything
: more!!!
:
It's still hellishly strong. There's little difference between Rebel,
Mchess Pro, Genius, and others. Not enough that you could really tell
the difference by looking at the games, until you get to know each program
well enough to understand each one's unique differences. I'm beginning to
develop a "feel" for Rebel 8, ChessMaster 5000, Genius 4 and Fritz 4, based
on hundreds of games played by Lonnie against Crafty. Each one has its
own set of strengths and weaknesses, and these even change from version to
version...
: So I'm definitely not interested in this kind of programming and if it goes
: on like this it will sooner or later have influence on my decision: simply
: not to buy this kind of programs any more.
:
: By the way: the learning function regularly produces more stupid stuff than
: interesting games.
: If you ever saw the variations on one variation produced by two computers,
: the results are in my eyes in 80% of the games boring, in 15% ridiculous
: and in 5% interesting. I'm simply not interested in this kind of opening
: études either.
:
: All in all: I'm happy to see the real playing strength and style of
: programs after
: a) switching off learning functions immediately
: b) using variety books instead of tornament book
: c) playing tournaments with certain openings for black and white and then
: switching off beoth books.
:
: Yours Dirk!
:
You'd love Crafty then. Unfortunately, it's book is *so* wide, it gets
into more trouble than Dennis the Menace. Makes for interesting games,
and for interesting losses too.. :)
Garby Leon
In <540fqj$l...@hpbs2500.boi.hp.com> jqta...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (john quill taylor)
writes:
(snip Hirsch stuff)
>Can't we just face it that all
>"book" knowledge and opening theory is an admission of our weakness,
>whether we're a human or a computer program? If we extol a program
>because it has the ability to find an elusive draw, we must also
>give credit to the program that has a better book.
>Rather than
>"steaming" here about how bad it is, I would politely ask that the
>programmers go and remove those "cookable" weaknesses from your books!
>Your book is only as strong as its weakest link, and M-Chess has
>proven to be a very tough chain to crack. Do you want to have a
>tournament with "all books off," or play the game as we currently
>know it?
yeah, okay, but it's not quite that simple.
ed's question is: should he spend his time (or maybe, waste his time) countering
'killer' lines in other programs that are specifically targeted to make his program
look bad? Or would he better devote that time to developing the strongest chess
engine he possibly can?
despite the seductive parallel, human play and computer chess aren't exactly the same.
Humans, of course, play to gain a tactical advantage and win. Computer programs have
a slightly different mission: the number of victories they can score in the short run
is perhaps less important than success in the overall project -- that of creating the
strongest chess-playing engine possible, over the course of time.
in that sense computer chess is somewhat out of the realm of pure sport -- pure
winning and losing -- and instead moves more closely to the realm of art, the quest to
reach an ideal.
***to me, in order to encourage and ultimately achieve that lofty goal, computer chess
competition should maximize the importance of the programmer's skill and the engine's
strength, while minimizing all other factors.***
which it already does, to some degree -- running programs on identical machines to
make the contest 'fair,' for example
now you might say, well, playing a game is playing a game, whether by human or
machine.
but killer lines aren't invented by machines -- they're invented by humans, special
humans whose superior positional skill and experience enable them to see through a
machine's weaknesses, especially in opening play. and, they're static rather than
dynamic -- they're not part of the 'thinking' of the program, only a guide to that
thinking with an outside assist.
so killer lines can be seen as kind of human-created crutches (or brass knuckles),
unbalancing the contest and enabling a given program to perform beyond its inherent
strength and capacity. they turn computer chess back into human chess.
that's because 'cooked' books, made by people, and then externally appended to the
engine itself, are not, strictly speaking, making a contribution to the larger mission
of computer chess itself. developing them is a different challenge than that of
developing the strongest chess playing engine. while it might be fun once in a while
to spring such a 'surprise,' when you see two strong programs come out of competition
at 19-2, you know something is not quite right.
ed's worry -- that cooked books minimize the importance of the chess engine, the
programmer's crown jewel and masterpiece -- seems reasonable and even a bit alarming.
if a killer line can actually conceal the playing weakness of a program, it makes any
tournament nearly meaningles.
ed's question is actually very practical: what should he do? To me, cooked books
distract from and undermine the unique and ancient dream of creating a chess-playing
automaton. I really don't want ed, or any other programmer, wasting his time trying
to find and build in lines which will beat Genius, or MChess, or Hiarcs, or any other
program, especially if it's at the expense of program development.
if one is interested in seeing the development of the ultimate chess-playing engine,
it tends to follow that engaging in these short-run tactical skirmishes using cooked
books -- say, to win the top rating on the SSDF list -- distracts from the central,
unique mission of programmers.
of course all this has a commercial ramification as well: but knocking off the
competition in the SSDF list with a program which may be inferior in playing strength
also seems to defeat the purpose of that list itself. the list then becomes very
misleading, and could lead astray people who are thinking of buying a program, and who
look to the SSDF to find the one playing the strongest overall game. it almost
becomes a problem of truth in advertising, or something.
this discussion actually reaches into a broader area as well, the general problem of
benchmarking computer chess programs as accurately as possible. of course humans do
that for themselves in OTB play, but for computers -- still at a very early stage of
technology -- the problem is slightly different.
Perhaps this discussion will lead to a better, more fair way to test program playing
strength.
My own feeling is that a true test would limit both programs to the same, standardized
book -- just as testers use two identical CPU's and hardware systems when running a
fair contest between programs. Otherwise the result has very little meaning --
exactly for the same reason that a contest between programs on unequal computers
doesn't reveal very much.
Such mechanical 'rules' -- like limiting competitors to a standardized opening book,
are part and parcel of every mature sport, whether limiting sail area, engine size,
ball size, take your pick. Baseball is played on a standard diamond; it certainly
hasn't hurt the game. Examples are too numerous to mention. to make a regatta really
exciting, you limit the amount of sail area any boat can use and make dozens of other
strict rules to enforce a 'one design' craft: that tends to highlight the competitive
skill and strategic savvy of each skipper and crew, makes for a more exciting race,
and tells us to a much greater degree which crew performed best -- which wouldn't
happen in a race between between big boats, little boats, yawls, catamarans,
windsurfers and so on. (although all major yacht racing uses complex formulas to
handicap racing results between differing craft as well...).
something like that seems like a reasonable strategy for computer chess to consider.
to me the central problem with killer lines is that they tend to
undermine any attempt to measure strength accurately in
computer-vs-computer chess contests. they also move computer chess
contests away from the crucial arena of the programmer's skill and the
engine's strength, and replace it with a much more mundane and
short-sighted activity.
-- garb leon
Goran Grottling
In article <53vqco$3...@news.xs4all.nl>, rebc...@xs4all.nl says...
>
At the moment the only "book cooking" program is Mchess5.
>I have explained this in detail in my previous posting including a lot
>of examples and complete games.
>
Dear Ed,
MChess 5 is not the only "book cooking" program on the Swedish Rating List.
Some programmers have put in special killer lines against their most important
competitors for more than ten years! It has caused some irritation to me from
time to time, but it is very difficult to solve this problem in a way, that
everybody could agree upon.
For example the Mach II (or was it Mach III?) from Fidelity had several
killerlines against some version of the Novag Expert. I was then worried about how
that would affect the rating figure. But when whe had played more than 500 games,
it only mattered about 5-10 points.
The conclusion was that it is important to play as many games as possible against
as many opponents as possible. Then a biased result will drown in the flood of games.
One can say that the team behind MChess (Marty Hirsch/Sandro Necchi) has made this
problem bigger, because MChess has killer lines against several opponents. And many
of them!
The killer library (right or wrong) does of course have an affect on the rating, but
not as much as you (Ed) believe. I wanted to give you the correct proportion on this
"problem", so I ran some tests with our ratingprogram. It is easy to just remove some
results and then make a new list.
So I removed all results between MChess 5.0 and Rebel6, Hiarcs3, Genius2 and Genius3
- programs that MCPro5 is told to be cooked against. All together 170 games.
First: Here is the top of the official rating list from the 11th of September.
THE SSDF RATING LIST 1996-09-11 50990 games played by 156 computers
Rating + - Games Won Oppo
------ --- --- ----- --- ----
1 Genius 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2420 29 -28 626 64% 2320
2 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz * 2418 28 -27 699 65% 2313
3 Rebel 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2415 31 -31 520 60% 2339
4 Rebel 7.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2412 28 -27 671 61% 2330
5 Genius 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2409 27 -26 705 65% 2298
6 Hiarcs 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2392 30 -30 545 57% 2341
7 Genius 4.0 486/50-66 MHz 2391 31 -31 516 60% 2319
8 Nimzo 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2388 30 -29 577 60% 2314
9 Hiarcs 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2380 31 -30 525 57% 2333
10 MChess Pro 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2367 30 -30 538 54% 2341
11 Genius 3.0 486/50-66 MHz 2362 24 -24 870 63% 2265
12 Fritz 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2361 29 -29 593 55% 2324
13 R30 v. 2.5 2356 52 -48 215 68% 2226
2 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2418
Genius 3 P90 13-7 Rebel 6.0 P90 16-4 Rebel 7.0 P90 8.5-11.5
Genius 4 P90 10-10 Hiarcs 4 P90 6.5-13.5 Geniu4 486/66 9.5-10.5
Nimzo 3.0 P90 6-14 Hiarcs 3 P90 16.5-3.5 MCPro 4.0 P90 9-11
Geniu3 486/66 11.5-8.5 Fritz 3.0 P90 12.5-7.5 R30 v. 2.5 8-12
MCPro5 486/66 10-10 Rebel7 486/66 11.5-8.5 Geniu2 486/66 15-5
Kallis198 P90 11-9 WChess P90 6-14 MCPr40 486/66 12-8
Fritz 4.0 P90 2-4 WChess 486/66 14.5-5.5 Hiarc3 486/66 16-4
Rebel6 486/66 16-4 Genius 68 030 7.5-2.5 CM30 King 2.0 21-8
ChGen1 486/66 22-8 MCPr35 486/66 15.5-4.5 Decade P90 13-7
Fritz3 486/66 12-8 Lyon 68030 15-5 Comet32 P90 14.5-5.5
Kallis 486/66 33-7 SPARC 20 MHz 14.5-5.5 Meph. RISC 18.5-1.5
Chess M. King 4-0 Sapphire 19.5-0.5
And here is the same list without 170 games for MCPro5:
SAME LIST - GAMES REMOVED! 50820 games played by 156 computers
Rating + - Games Won Oppo
------ --- --- ----- --- ----
1 Genius 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2425 30 -28 606 65% 2318
2 Rebel 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2424 32 -31 500 62% 2337
3 Rebel 7.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2412 28 -27 671 61% 2330
4 Genius 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2408 27 -26 705 65% 2298
5 Hiarcs 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2392 30 -30 545 57% 2341
6 Genius 4.0 486/50-66 MHz 2391 31 -31 516 60% 2319
7 Hiarcs 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2389 32 -31 505 58% 2330
8 Nimzo 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2388 30 -29 577 60% 2314
9 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz * 2386 31 -30 529 62% 2302
10 MChess Pro 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2367 30 -30 538 54% 2341
11 Genius 3.0 486/50-66 MHz 2363 25 -24 850 64% 2263
12 Fritz 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2361 29 -29 593 55% 2324
13 R30 v. 2.5 2353 52 -48 215 68% 2223
9 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2386
Rebel 7.0 P90 8.5-11.5 Genius 4 P90 10-10 Hiarcs 4 P90 6.5-13.5
Geniu4 486/66 9.5-10.5 Nimzo 3.0 P90 6-14 MCPro 4.0 P90 9-11
Fritz 3.0 P90 12.5-7.5 R30 v. 2.5 8-12 Rebel7 486/66 11.5-8.5
MCPro5 486/66 10-10 Kallis198 P90 11-9 WChess P90 6-14
MCPr40 486/66 12-8 Fritz 4.0 P90 2-4 WChess 486/66 14.5-5.5
CM30 King 2.0 21-8 ChGen1 486/66 22-8 MCPr35 486/66 15.5-4.5
Fritz3 486/66 12-8 Lyon 68030 15-5 Comet32 P90 14.5-5.5
Kallis 486/66 33-7 SPARC 20 MHz 14.5-5.5 Meph. RISC 18.5-1.5
Chess M. King 4-0 Sapphire 19.5-0.5
The "cooking" has this far given MCPro5 32 ratingpoints, (and not more than 100!)
32 points is not much, but of course it looks much better to be No 2 than No 9!
Well, I will follow this thread hoping that anybody will have an acceptable
solution to take out the plus effect of killer books! Of course I also am inte-
rested in "the real" playing strength of the programs. But please remember, that
the opening library must be one part of this strength.
I think that only the programmers can do anything about this, I don't really
think that the SSDF can prevent it. I agree with Chris Whittington, that learning
functions can help out. And I will also remind, that a program with many, many
variations in it's library and with a good, random play will be more difficult to
trap with killer lines.
At the same time it would be nice for us humans to play against programs with
a wide variety of play.
Goran Grottling (who once started the SSDF rating list...)
PS. BTW, I can confirm your news about Rebel8 on the next rating list. After 511
games it has a rating of 2479 and is indeed the new Number One! Here are our results
so far:
1 Rebel 8.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2479
Genius 3 P90 11.5-8.5 MCPro 5.0 P90 13.5-6.5 Rebel 6.0 P90 10.5-9.5
Rebel 7.0 P90 12.5-7.5 Genius 4 P90 9.5-10.5 CM5000 P90 1.5-0.5
Hiarcs 4 P90 11.5-8.5 Geniu4 486/66 11.5-8.5 Nimzo 3.0 P90 13.5-6.5
Hiarcs 3 P90 10.5-9.5 MCPro 4.0 P90 15-5 Geniu3 486/66 15-5
Fritz 3.0 P90 15.5-4.5 Rebel7 486/66 15-5 MCPro5 486/66 19-1
Geniu2 486/66 11.5-8.5 Kallis198 P90 15-5 WChess P90 11-9
Hiarc3 486/66 15-5 Rebel6 486/66 14-6 ChGen1 486/66 9.5-1.5
Decade P90 12-8 MCPr35 486/66 15.5-4.5 Fritz3 486/66 17-3
Lyon 68030 14-6 Kallis 486/66 20.5-3.5 SPARC 20 MHz 10-3
Meph. RISC 1-0
Next official list will appear October 23.
Ed Schröder
Dear Goran,
Thank you very much for your reply!
Your test (removing several matches) looks very convincing, but I think
it is in error. Your conclusion of 32 is too low since the book cooking
works on all programs.
You have removed the results of just 4 opponents giving already a loss
of 32 ELO points! I find that a lot!
It also means a free gain of 32 ELO against these 4 older versions (they
can not defend themselves!) on future releases if the book in question
remains unchanged on these killer lines.
I agree with you that the situation is difficult but I think there are
several solutions. One of them is to simply not allow double games.
I know this is an old subject we disagree on but at least it will prevent
this silly results I have published a few days ago:
Mchess5 (ELO 2418) - Hiarcs3 (ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
with > 90% double games.
Without counting double games the results would look like:
Mchess5 (ELO 2418) - Hiarcs3 (ELO 2380) 2 - 0
which certainly looks more in balance looking at the final elo difference
of 38 points between these 2 programs.
I know this has other disadvantages:
- Less games on computer opponents with (very) small books.
- A lot more work for SSDF to get the needed number of games!
I know the whole subject is a pain.
- Ed Schroder -
Robert Hyatt
Moritz Berger (ber...@athene.informatik.uni-bonn.de) wrote:
: Graham Laight wrote:
: > Everybody in Europe always seems to want protectionist measures at the
: first
: > sniff of competition. I wish we could be more like the USA.
: very interesting. You are against protectionism? You are suggesting fair
: play? I think that book cooking is comparable with the worst kinds of
: protectionism (i.e. it doesn't favour the best but instead influences
: competition by means the don't really belong to the real issue, e.g.
: monetary subsidizes, trade customs or cooked books).
:
: > How do you expect consumers around the world to judge programs except by
: looking
: > at tables?
: >
: > Is everybody expected to make deep studies every time they buy a USD100
: product?
:
: Maybe you (the customer) would be pissed off if you bought a product in the
: good faith that it had a very strong chess engine (rated #1 on the SSDF
: list), only to find out that against humans its playing strength is more
: than 100 SSDF/ELO points below its advertised strength?
This is a problem anyway. I haven't seen any of the programs that are
rated at >2400 ("Elo") perform at that level in real games against real
FIDE IM's and GM's... So from this perspective, the issue is not so
important because you'll be disappointed killer books or not. A preview
was posted this morning with Rebel 8 at 2475 or so on the next list.
I have a lot of respect for all the commercial programs, but have not
seen a one that I think really plays at nearly a FIDE 2500 level. They
simply don't "know enough." They play tactically wonderful, positionally
o.k., but long-range planning is the pits, yet that's exactly what a 2500
player excels at, "where do I want my pieces and pawns 20 moves from now?"
Not "where do I want my pieces *now*?" and then two moves later ask the
same question and get a slightly different answer. :)
In any case, take the SSDF as computer vs computer performance and nothing
more. The programs at the top will do better against humans than the ones
at the bottom because they are way stronger... however, whether #1 is better
against Kasparov than #2 is anybody's guess...
: These killer
: openings are often quite bad against humans and mean an overall worse book
: quality! MChess 5 often plays the French Defense, good against other
: computers (computers don't play the French very well), bad against humans.
:
: BTW: By avoiding the opening traps of the MChess 5 book and using a few
: cooked lines specifically against MChess itself, Rebel 8 will be very
: likely the top program on the next list by a margin of maybe 50-60 SSDF/ELO
: point (just to prove the point). At least the intermediate results posted
: here seem to suggest this. This shows that Ed could play the game very well
: if he wanted, he could even post monthly killer updates on his web page
: where he currently provides outstanding customer support.
:
: > My opinion is that, if you can't compete, and you stand and complain
: noisily
: > about it, you make yourself look weak. I personally think that it is not
: good
: > to present yourself to the world with the word "victim" stamped upon your
: > forehead.
:
: Consider the case of Hiarcs: Hiarcs is one of the strongest programs
: around, especially against humans. It plays a very interesting style and
: has much positional and endgame knowledge. A real winner. IMHO mostly due
: to Mchess book-cooking the program isn't recognized as one of the very
: strongest (although despite of the cooked results against Mchess, it's
: rated quite high in the SSDF list). The author doesn't get the commercial
: rewards for his ingenious programming and the further development of Hiarcs
: is at risk. Mark Uniacke a victim? Yes, I would certainly say so. Doping is
: considered unethical in all kind of sports, since it hides the real
: strength and commitment of athletes and deprives the fair players of the
: recognition they deserve.
:
: BUY HIARCS! You won't regret it if you're after one of the very best chess
: engines!
:
: I'm simply not interested in buying a program that only performs well
: against other programs by using a cooked book. Chess programming is a very
: intelligent task, book cooking is FOUL PLAY.
:
: About learning functions: T he SSDF usually plays 20-40 games against one
: opponent, maybe even on different machines. Book learning could only work
: in advance, not for such a limited ammount of games.
Depends. Genius usually uses a pretty narrow book that is really nicely
tailored to its style of play. A narrow book, playing someone that learns,
is a recipe for disaster. In this case it wouldn't be cooking, it is just
that the "learner" learns how to bust the opponent's book by playing... If
the opponent doesn't also learn, someone's going to lose. *big*. 40 games
may be enough with a narrow book. 10 might be enough at times to see the
last 4-5 settled in dramatic style, and the last 4 might be the same games
twice with each color. :)
:
: The non-response of the MChess team (doesn't need to be Marty Hirsch
: himself) to the facts revealed here in this newsgroup is very interesting.
: I fear that they are just too busy adjusting the MChess 6 book against
: other opponents ...
:
: If the MChess development continues in this questionable direction, I am
: proposing to ignore all of its games in the SSDF list and simply calculate
: a new list based on all other games (excepting recent MChess versions).
: This would only improve the margin of error in all ratings ...
it would also distort things, because there's lots of book-cooking by most
everyone there at one time or another. Maybe the "scale" is different for
Mchess vs Genius 4, but both have cooked lines...
:
: Disclaimer: I like Mchess and would certainly support it if not for the
: killer book issue. If Marty Hirsch decides to optionally disable the killer
: variants, I will be the first to applaude and buy the new version. The
: Mchess concept is very interesting and Mchess has been one of the first
: really good PC programs. Marty Hirsch deserves much respect for his
: excellent programming and I hope that he will invest the time he will save
: in the future by not cooking his books in many new and successful chess
: engines.
:
: --
Meik Weber
On 14 Oct 1996 14:29:04 GMT, "Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
>
Hi all you chess computer and chess programs fans here.
I want to add my personal opinion here about these "killer books".
Ed, you state that the MChess programmers modified their opening books
during the tournament (or testing phase) and added a killer line.
If this is allowed, you are allowed to do the same.
I don't think it is necessary to add killer lines to REBEL to defeat
other programs, but I think it is necessary to avoid being trapped
this easy way.
If your program looses a game, then you should modify your opening
books in a way that this particular loss will not occur again.
(blanking out the line, correcting it, whatever).
You will have to do the same with all other lost games in the
tournament, to get trapped the same way another program got trapped.
If you do not do modify your program or opening book, to avoid this
trap, it is your fault, if you loose again the same game.
If you look at human chess players, it is the same. They get trapped
and after that they learn and avoid this particular variant or learn
the correct way.
I don't know what you are allowed to do to your program during a
tournament or the rating phase. I believe it is better to improve the
engine in a way that this loss will never occur again, but the easier
and faster way is modifying the opening book.
If your program does not learn, you better not wonder why you get
trapped the same way again and again or if another player/program gets
profit out of this situation.
I will buy a computer chess program around christmas. My decision
which program to take is only partially based on the published ELO
ratings. I am not going to buy a program which ranks around No 20. The
top ten will be in my basket. I will then take the program which best
fits my need for usabilty.
1) Copy protection
The less, the better (I defrag my HDD every 3 days and I already have
3 hardlocks on my parallel port and there is no more place to stick
another one onto that). This criterium is something as a k.o.
criterium. I already returned 2 programs to the manufacturer with
money-back as they had hardlocks and did not mention them in
advertising (these were not chess programs).
I have no problem with showing the program a CD or a disk every week
or month.
2) Analysis of played games:
in a way that the program notes the line it would play in each
position with rating. It can do more, but this is the basics.
(BTW: What is Fritz4 doing here. My friend is not capable of getting
more out of the program than "xxx is not better.", Fritz2 was much
easier/better in this topic)
An enhanced feature could be a line that the program did not choose. I
mean sometimes I see DECADE thinking on a move and then taking another
and I don't know why. In a moment the program finds a trap in the move
it should show it. Sometimes I do a move just to see why DECADE did
not choose that move and often after long thinking it shows me why.
(Do you understand what I want?)
3) Ease of use
I hate sticking around with hotkeys. My input medium is the mouse and
nothing else.
(BTW: do you have a move-suggestion feature? I mean if I am to move,
does your program mark the most reasonable target field if I click a
piece? In that way I think I can avoid this dragging most of the time
or save a click. I do not mean this "Give me a tip" feature, all
programs have).
4) Database functions
I have no idea what I want there, so I think this is not the main part
of my decision.
REBEL comes to mind, as I already have this freeware version (DECADE)
and I don't like to buy something I don't know. Thank you for this
freeware program.
Kind Regards and I hope this is something useful to this group
Meikel Weber
m.w...@public.ndh.com
Make sure you visit my homepage
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/Homepages/meikel/mew.htm
Herbert Pohlai
|> Well, I will follow this thread hoping that anybody will have an acceptable
|> solution to take out the plus effect of killer books! Of course I also am inte-
|> rested in "the real" playing strength of the programs. But please remember, that
|> the opening library must be one part of this strength.
What about the following: Take the position where the SECOND (the last) program
leaves it's book and play another game with changed colors starting there.
A program with a well tuned book (a book that leads to positions the program understands)
will understand the position from both sides and therefore have an advantage.
A program with a killer book will hurt itself.
Herbert
Don Fong
In article <01bbbb7c$535c0920$Loca...@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>,
Moritz Berger <ber...@athene.informatik.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
>Maybe you (the customer) would be pissed off if you bought a product in the
>good faith that it had a very strong chess engine (rated #1 on the SSDF
>list), only to find out that against humans its playing strength is more
>openings are often quite bad against humans and mean an overall worse book
>quality! MChess 5 often plays the French Defense, good against other
>computers (computers don't play the French very well), bad against humans.
PMFJI. it seems to me that the core problem here is not with
MCHESS or with SSDF. the problem is that the human consumer is
making an incorrect -assumption- that the best program in a computer
competition will also be the best program in a human competition.
IMHO that assumption is no more reasonable than -assuming- that
the best racing bike will also be the best mountain bike. or that
the best commuter car will also be a good snowmobile.
perhaps SSDF could alter their methods to eliminate the killer
book anomalies, or perhaps all the programs could join the "arms race".
but you would still have the same fundamental problem:
testing against computers is not the same as testing against humans.
i don't think SSDF ever claimed to determine which is the strongest
program against humans. if you really want to know that, then the
SSDF way is the wrong way to do it.
if you think the "killer book" approach gives an inflated
estimate of strength, then prove it by beating it.
SSDF may not be perfect, but it is at least objective. when you
say that MCHESS (or some other program's) rating is inflated, that
presumes some other objective system of measurement. define it,
implement it, and popularize it.
Stephen B Streater
In article <01bbb9e8$7cd67000$2e06...@omni2.voicenet.com>, chessman
<URL:mailto:ches...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Ed Schr=F6der <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote in article
> <53ting$n...@news.xs4all.nl>...
> Personally, I believe this is a problem ...not only for consumers, but
> programmers and the SSDF.
Don't human players have the same problem as well? Some GMs learn
masses of theory and examine opponent's moves while preparing for a
match. I think the solution is to add some randomness to the computer's
moves, so that the chance of a match is low.
--=20
Stephen B Streater
Tord Kallqvist Romstad
Robert Hyatt (hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu) wrote:
: Depends. Genius usually uses a pretty narrow book that is really nicely
: tailored to its style of play. A narrow book, playing someone that learns,
: is a recipe for disaster. In this case it wouldn't be cooking, it is just
: that the "learner" learns how to bust the opponent's book by playing... If
: the opponent doesn't also learn, someone's going to lose. *big*. 40 games
: may be enough with a narrow book. 10 might be enough at times to see the
: last 4-5 settled in dramatic style, and the last 4 might be the same games
: twice with each color. :)
M-Chess would be even more vulnerable than Genius, I think. The book is
much narrower than Genius' book, and contains lots of unsound lines.
Tord
Stephen B Streater
In article <32644E...@earthlink.net>, Eran
<URL:mailto:mr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>=20
> Ed Schr=F6der wrote:
> >=20
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> I suggest that maybe all of you, chess programmers who don't like
> killer-book, establish an honest, international organization where
> computer chess tests can be made most accurate and reliable results. For
> example, a name for the new international organization can be
> "International Computer Chess Standard." It is where all computer chess
> tests must meet strict standard requirements where killer-book is not
> allowed, for instance. All chess programmers can be members of that
> organization and can vote equally what yes and what not allow to include
> anything such as killer-book in strict standard.
I think killer books should be allowed. How can you ban it without
coming across vast grey areas on how programs work? I think that
in a chess competition, the chess program should be treated like
a black box, and the internal structure should be the sole preserve
of the programmer.
--=20
Stephen B Streater
Stephen B Streater
In article <541o4g$h...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, Garby Leon
<URL:mailto:ga...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> but killer lines aren't invented by machines -- they're invented by humans, special
> humans whose superior positional skill and experience enable them to see through a
> machine's weaknesses, especially in opening play. and, they're static rather than
> dynamic -- they're not part of the 'thinking' of the program, only a guide to that
> thinking with an outside assist.
>
> so killer lines can be seen as kind of human-created crutches (or brass knuckles),
> unbalancing the contest and enabling a given program to perform beyond its inherent
> strength and capacity. they turn computer chess back into human chess.
I agree. That's why I don't use any human-created crutches in my chess program
(C_897d for the StrongARM micro-processor from Digital Semiconductor). It doesn't
rely on my tweaking parameters in the chess engine, as this would be "cheating".
Instead, I've spent my time optimizing the exhaustive search, and it now reaches
its current maximum depth of 12 ply (there is an additional quiescent search of
up to 15 ply) quite early in the game. I'll increase it from 12 to 15 ply when
I have time ie soon, though I regret only allowing 4 bits in the position to
specify the depth, not realising how deep it would go.
It currently generates 750,000 positions per second, though as the SA is quite a
new processor, I expect to reach 1,000,000 positions per second before long. I
also have a 5-processor upgrade for my computer, so could be up to 5 million
nodes/sec soon as exhaustive search is easy to parallelise :-)
PS The StrongARM is only $49, so if anyone is making a dedicated chess computer,
perhaps they should consider using it.
--
Stephen B Streater
Moritz Berger
Graham Laight wrote:
> Everybody in Europe always seems to want protectionist measures at the
first
> sniff of competition. I wish we could be more like the USA.
>
very interesting. You are against protectionism? You are suggesting fair
play? I think that book cooking is comparable with the worst kinds of
protectionism (i.e. it doesn't favour the best but instead influences
competition by means the don't really belong to the real issue, e.g.
monetary subsidizes, trade customs or cooked books).
> How do you expect consumers around the world to judge programs except by
looking
> at tables?
>
> Is everybody expected to make deep studies every time they buy a USD100
product?
>
Maybe you (the customer) would be pissed off if you bought a product in the
good faith that it had a very strong chess engine (rated #1 on the SSDF
list), only to find out that against humans its playing strength is more
than 100 SSDF/ELO points below its advertised strength? These killer
openings are often quite bad against humans and mean an overall worse book
quality! MChess 5 often plays the French Defense, good against other
computers (computers don't play the French very well), bad against humans.
BTW: By avoiding the opening traps of the MChess 5 book and using a few
The non-response of the MChess team (doesn't need to be Marty Hirsch
himself) to the facts revealed here in this newsgroup is very interesting.
I fear that they are just too busy adjusting the MChess 6 book against
other opponents ...
If the MChess development continues in this questionable direction, I am
proposing to ignore all of its games in the SSDF list and simply calculate
a new list based on all other games (excepting recent MChess versions).
This would only improve the margin of error in all ratings ...
Disclaimer: I like Mchess and would certainly support it if not for the
killer book issue. If Marty Hirsch decides to optionally disable the killer
variants, I will be the first to applaude and buy the new version. The
Mchess concept is very interesting and Mchess has been one of the first
really good PC programs. Marty Hirsch deserves much respect for his
excellent programming and I hope that he will invest the time he will save
in the future by not cooking his books in many new and successful chess
engines.
--
---------
Moritz Berger
ber...@zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de
Komputer Korner
Eran wrote:
> =
> Ed Schr=F6der wrote:
> >
> =
> Hi,
> =
> I suggest that maybe all of you, chess programmers who don't like
> killer-book, establish an honest, international organization where
> computer chess tests can be made most accurate and reliable results. For
> example, a name for the new international organization can be
> "International Computer Chess Standard." It is where all computer chess
> tests must meet strict standard requirements where killer-book is not
> allowed, for instance. All chess programmers can be members of that
> organization and can vote equally what yes and what not allow to include
> anything such as killer-book in strict standard. So, I hope this make
> all chess programmers satisfied and happy. Furthermore, creating newer
> chess programs should meet "International Computer Chess Standard"
> requirements, because this also helps customers all over the world to
> buy correct chess software happily without confusion. I understand that
> SSDF may be no longer reliable, because the computer chess tests are in
> poor and unfair condition; maybe this condition is too liberal and not
> strict enough. Therefore, I think establishing a new strict and honest
> organization is a very good idea, it will solve many problems in both
> computer chess tests and chess software and clear any confusion among
> chess programmers and customers alike.
And how would they decide exactly what opening moves are allowed?
And how would they make sure that there aren't any hidden killer books?
Dream on!!!!
-- =
Komputer Korner
Eran
Kevin,
I agree with you. :-)
Eran
James E. Hughes
> In article <01bbbb7c$535c0920$Loca...@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>,
> Moritz Berger <ber...@athene.informatik.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> >Maybe you (the customer) would be pissed off if you bought a product in the
> >good faith that it had a very strong chess engine (rated #1 on the SSDF
> >list), only to find out that against humans its playing strength is more
> >than 100 SSDF/ELO points below its advertised strength? These killer
> >openings are often quite bad against humans and mean an overall worse book
> >quality! MChess 5 often plays the French Defense, good against other
> >computers (computers don't play the French very well), bad against humans.
>
> PMFJI. it seems to me that the core problem here is not with
> MCHESS or with SSDF. the problem is that the human consumer is
> making an incorrect -assumption- that the best program in a computer
> competition will also be the best program in a human competition.
> IMHO that assumption is no more reasonable than -assuming- that
> the best racing bike will also be the best mountain bike. or that
> the best commuter car will also be a good snowmobile.
>
> perhaps SSDF could alter their methods to eliminate the killer
> book anomalies, or perhaps all the programs could join the "arms race".
> but you would still have the same fundamental problem:
> testing against computers is not the same as testing against humans.
> i don't think SSDF ever claimed to determine which is the strongest
> program against humans. if you really want to know that, then the
> SSDF way is the wrong way to do it.
>
> if you think the "killer book" approach gives an inflated
> estimate of strength, then prove it by beating it.
>
> SSDF may not be perfect, but it is at least objective. when you
> say that MCHESS (or some other program's) rating is inflated, that
> presumes some other objective system of measurement. define it,
> implement it, and popularize it.
>
> --
> don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
The fact that an individual with an obviously strong moral sense can argue
so passionately about Indonesia and the WMCCC yet not express any
reservations about the ethics of using killer books reinforces my view
that we all need to be more tolerant of people whose ethical judgements
differ from our own.
My apologies if this posts twice. My first attempt generated an error msg.
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Hi Don
Don Fong <df...@cse.ucsc.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
<540fgc$r...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>...
> In article <53urm3$n...@news-central.tiac.net>,
> James Garner <da...@laraby.tiac.net> wrote:
> |Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
>
> maybe he's just too busy. or maybe he's on vacation.
> or maybe he just doesn't think your questions are worth
> responding to. believe it or not, the world does not revolve
> around RGCC.
You are right in this point: one should never talk about phantasies why
someone might be doing something or not.
But
> |Apparently, he, like Steve at
> |ICD, figures that the less said, the sooner the thread will drop.
> |
> | Wrong.
>
> i can't speak for Hirsch, but if it were me, i would not
> dignify that kind of insulting drivel with -any- kind of response,
> just on principle.
Here I think everybody should return lots of clear facts Ed has presented.
And Ed presented them after Marty made an absolutely unacceptable about
Mchess cookbooks right here in RGCC (so at least he is revolving around
RGCC sometimes).
How would you feel if your (and other's) programs would have been outbooked
to such an extreme extent?
So you might try to keep fair in judging Ed and perhaps spare some of your
ethics for judging nice little killer books ;-)
> --- don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
> --
>
Sheila Popcorn
On 15 Oct 1996 10:52:08 GMT, "Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Kevin,
>
>You are missing the point of the discussion!
>
>The issue is that SSDF allows to test "book cooking" chess programs
>against older chess programs who CAN NOT defend themselves.
>
>These "book cooking" programs therefore gain a LOT of ELO points on the
>SSDF rating list!! and therefore the rating of "book cooking" programs
>ARE NOT RELIABLE.
>
>At the moment the only "book cooking" program is Mchess5.
>I have explained this in detail in my previous posting including a lot
>of examples and complete games.
>
>I am just worried about this new development, we *ALL* want a SSDF list
>with the STRONGEST chess program on TOP. No?
>
>As I producer myself I surely hope that this will be my own program, no
>doubt about that, but I prefer a reliable no.1 on SSDF and I don't care
>if that is one of my concurrents as long as it is reliable!
>
>For years this was the ChessMachine The King;
>For years this was Genius3;
>Both programs were the strongest at that moment!
>
>I have NO problems with Mchess, Genius, Hiarcs, Crafty, Schredder on TOP
>of SSDF as long as the rating and the no.1 position is earned by the
>STRONGEST chess engine.
>
>Unfortunately this has been not been the case in the past year and
>this is the main reason for our discussion.
>
>Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
>
>- Ed Schroder -
>
>
>From: kjbe...@chimi.engr.ucdavis.edu (Kevin James Begley)
>Mark Uniacke (ma...@acc-ltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: I have never put killer lines in Hiarcs' opening book for computer
>: opponents. What limited time I have I prefer to devote to work on the
>: chess engine.
>: I belive chess programs should be developed for the users/customers who
>: are willing to purchase them. It seems some chess programs are being
>: developed to beat other chess programs as a main priority. Surely this
>: cannot be right?
>
I agree...In business..superior products should win out. If live chess
players have teams of people help them to prepare to play a specific
opponent, then why not machines also. This will force the quality of
computer opening preparation to a higher level, which in turn will
have computers play at a higher level.
Sheila Popstein
>
>
>
Goran Grottling
In article <54325v$m...@news.xs4all.nl>, rebc...@xs4all.nl says...
>
>Dear Goran,
>
>Thank you very much for your reply!
>
>Your test (removing several matches) looks very convincing, but I think
>it is in error. Your conclusion of 32 is too low since the book cooking
>works on all programs.
>
>You have removed the results of just 4 opponents giving already a loss
>of 32 ELO points! I find that a lot!
>
I obviously don't pay as much attention to 32 ELO points as you do! It is
almost within the margin of error.
I removed the opponents you and Eric pointed out. And I just wanted to show
that it is not a question of hundreds of points. I just feel that you are
overreacting about this.
In my last letter I presented the current results for Rebel8. I am sure of that
you can agree with me that some of them are good and some of them are worse for
your program. The result against MCPro5/486 (19-1) is indeed a very good one,
while for instance the result against your own Decade (12-8) is below the average
level.
1 Rebel 8.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2479
Genius 3 P90 11.5-8.5 MCPro 5.0 P90 13.5-6.5 Rebel 6.0 P90 10.5-9.5
Rebel 7.0 P90 12.5-7.5 Genius 4 P90 9.5-10.5 CM5000 P90 1.5-0.5
Hiarcs 4 P90 11.5-8.5 Geniu4 486/66 11.5-8.5 Nimzo 3.0 P90 13.5-6.5
Hiarcs 3 P90 10.5-9.5 MCPro 4.0 P90 15-5 Geniu3 486/66 15-5
Fritz 3.0 P90 15.5-4.5 Rebel7 486/66 15-5 MCPro5 486/66 19-1
Geniu2 486/66 11.5-8.5 Kallis198 P90 15-5 WChess P90 11-9
Hiarc3 486/66 15-5 Rebel6 486/66 14-6 ChGen1 486/66 9.5-1.5
Decade P90 12-8 MCPr35 486/66 15.5-4.5 Fritz3 486/66 17-3
Lyon 68030 14-6 Kallis 486/66 20.5-3.5 SPARC 20 MHz 10-3
Meph. RISC 1-0
I can divide the different results in two groups (good and "bad") and calculate
the ratings. You must be aware of that you will get quite different rating figures
for the two groups. (I don't say that this is about "cooking" - it may be just chance)
>I agree with you that the situation is difficult but I think there are
>several solutions. One of them is to simply not allow double games.
>
Yes, we disagree about double games. But we can agree that the situation is diffi-
cult to solve.
>I know this is an old subject we disagree on but at least it will prevent
>this silly results I have published a few days ago:
>Mchess5 (ELO 2418) - Hiarcs3 (ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
>with > 90% double games.
>
Let me just put in, that 19-0 is not the result we received. Our result was 16.5-3.5,
which of course also is a very good result for MCPro5. Did you only get two different
games out of 19? Do you mean one win as white and one win as black for MChess? Or did
you only let MChess play from the white side?
>Without counting double games the results would look like:
>Mchess5 (ELO 2418) - Hiarcs3 (ELO 2380) 2 - 0
>which certainly looks more in balance looking at the final elo difference
>of 38 points between these 2 programs.
>
If we hadn't counted double games we had had a different result than 16.5-3.5 (I can
check that out) but it hadn't been 2-0...
>I know this has other disadvantages:
>- Less games on computer opponents with (very) small books.
>- A lot more work for SSDF to get the needed number of games!
>
>I know the whole subject is a pain.
>
>- Ed Schroder -
>
Yes, it is a pain! But your suggestion doesn't solve this at all. You seem to forget,
that also the losses of MChess can be repeated. Or do you have any indication of that
MChess avoids repeating it's losses or draws and only repeats it's wins?
The number of repeats is due to how narrow and monotonous the program's library is. If you play
20 games (10 as white, 10 as black), it is of course possible to get 20 different games
with MChess against an opponent who plays with a big variety.
Let's assume that 50 % of all games with MChess are repetitions, which you want to be
removed. If the result after 20 games was 12-8, the new result would be 6-4. And if it was 16-4,
the new result would be 8-2.
The current line for MCPro5 is:
2 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2418 +28 -27 699 65% 2313
If we removed all repeated games, the line should be:
2 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2418 +45 -45 350 65% 2313
It is true, that MChess takes advantage of weaknesses in other program's openinglibrarys
and early mistakes just after the opening. This hadn't been possible, if the other programs
had played more openinglines and also had played more randomely during the game.
I once asked one of the top-programmers, why his program only played so few lines activ in spite
of that his program "knew" so much theory (which only was shown, if the opponent played those lines).
He answered, that he thought that his program would do much worse against humans - and computers as
well - if it played lines which would lead to a more open play.
But this decision has also made his program easy to book out (and that is what has happened).
You can't eat the cake and still have it...
I could just add, that also human players take advantage of a certain program's lack of variety.
And I don't think that anybody can judge this as unfair!
Chris Whittington
jhu...@indirect.com (James E. Hughes) wrote:
>
> In article <54397q$l...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) wrote:
>
> > In article <01bbbb7c$535c0920$Loca...@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>,
> > Moritz Berger <ber...@athene.informatik.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> > >good faith that it had a very strong chess engine (rated #1 on the SSDF
> > >list), only to find out that against humans its playing strength is more
> > >than 100 SSDF/ELO points below its advertised strength? These killer
> > >openings are often quite bad against humans and mean an overall worse book
> > >quality! MChess 5 often plays the French Defense, good against other
> > >computers (computers don't play the French very well), bad against humans.
> >
> > MCHESS or with SSDF. the problem is that the human consumer is
> > making an incorrect -assumption- that the best program in a computer
> > competition will also be the best program in a human competition.
> > IMHO that assumption is no more reasonable than -assuming- that
> > the best racing bike will also be the best mountain bike. or that
> > the best commuter car will also be a good snowmobile.
> >
> > perhaps SSDF could alter their methods to eliminate the killer
> > book anomalies, or perhaps all the programs could join the "arms race".
> > but you would still have the same fundamental problem:
> > testing against computers is not the same as testing against humans.
> > i don't think SSDF ever claimed to determine which is the strongest
> > program against humans. if you really want to know that, then the
> > SSDF way is the wrong way to do it.
> >
> > if you think the "killer book" approach gives an inflated
> > estimate of strength, then prove it by beating it.
> >
> > SSDF may not be perfect, but it is at least objective. when you
> > say that MCHESS (or some other program's) rating is inflated, that
> > presumes some other objective system of measurement. define it,
> > implement it, and popularize it.
> >
> > --
>
> so passionately about Indonesia and the WMCCC yet not express any
> reservations about the ethics of using killer books reinforces my view
> that we all need to be more tolerant of people whose ethical judgements
> differ from our own.
Huh ?
What does this mean ?
Seems to make no sense at all.
The issues are unconnected.
The conclusion is a non-sequitur.
Chris Whittington
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Hi Bob,
you know things too good to agree with someone who clearly shows he has not
even understood the problem (cooking against *past* versions of others
without any possible defence for them and getting points which do not have
much in common with the prgrams playing strength). It is a massive
misunderstanding to treat the whole thing as a nice little competition
between programs and programmers!!
Please note: for me as a computer programs user there is simply *nothing*
attractive or even acceptable in such an extensive use of killer
variations. Of course I can't force anyone to respect my opinion, but I can
descide which programs I will buy and use...
So if enough users will express their disgust for this kind of programming,
programmers perhaps will slowly learn to see this as a hint to concentrate
on real playing strength: and Marty certainly belongs to those who have to
offer enough here.
I really don't have anything against Marty or his program: but quite a lot
against this kind of cooking!
It's enough to give a program the type of openings it plays better than
others.
This is simply what I as one of the users wants from Mchess just as from
*any* chess program: good play, nice book, no cooks!
And if Mchess6 or any other program continues with this kind of thing, I
will simply not buy it and not recommend it to anyone.
Active disinterest, if you understand what I mean :-)
Yours Dirk
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
<540r6q$4...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
> john quill taylor (jqta...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com) wrote:
> : da...@laraby.tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
> :
> : >Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
> :
> : >: I have posted my reply also to Marty's email address so he couldn't
miss
> : >: my comments. Till now I have not received any reply from Marty. Not
here
> : >: and not in RGCC.
> :
> : > Marty Hirsch does not respond to posts that he doesn't like. He
> : >doesn't even respond to posts that ask for information, such as the
one I
> : >posted about the 10MB Hash table limit. Apparently, he, like Steve at
> : >ICD, figures that the less said, the sooner the thread will drop.
> :
> : > Wrong.
> :
> : I'm just a lowly "D" player out here in Idaho, yet Marty has answered
> : virtually all of my e-mail inquiries. It looks _so_ unprofessional to
> : see him attacked in this newsgroup. Can't we just face it that all
> : "book" knowledge and opening theory is an admission of our weakness,
> : whether we're a human or a computer program? If we extol a program
> : because it has the ability to find an elusive draw, we must also
> : give credit to the program that has a better book. Rather than
> : "steaming" here about how bad it is, I would politely ask that the
> : programmers go and remove those "cookable" weaknesses from your books!
> :
> : Your book is only as strong as its weakest link, and M-Chess has
> : proven to be a very tough chain to crack. Do you want to have a
> : tournament with "all books off," or play the game as we currently
> : know it?
> :
> : __
>
> I agree.
>
> Between the hyperbole and personal attacks, there's not much room left
> for useful information here. :)
>
> Bob
>
>
Dirk Frickenschmidt
I really can't imagine something more unneccesary than forcing something
which I regard as absolutely stupid upon anybody else.
I could rather decide to ignore all programs that use lots of killer
variations...
--
Yours Dirk
Mark Rawlings <raw...@erols.com> schrieb im Beitrag
<541eij$l...@boursy.news.erols.com>...
Robert Hyatt
Dirk Frickenschmidt (di...@jimknopf.wupper.de) wrote:
:
: Here I think everybody should return lots of clear facts Ed has presented.
: And Ed presented them after Marty made an absolutely unacceptable about
: Mchess cookbooks right here in RGCC (so at least he is revolving around
: RGCC sometimes).
:
: How would you feel if your (and other's) programs would have been outbooked
: to such an extreme extent?
: So you might try to keep fair in judging Ed and perhaps spare some of your
: ethics for judging nice little killer books ;-)
One thing I'd like to point out here. When you are on "top" of the heap,
you are *very* easy for everyone to see. I was there with Cray Blitz for
many years, and had lots of traps "sprang" on me. Fortunately, CB was
fast enough that the traps usually were busted tactically, but it was a
constant struggle for us. Since the ACM and WCCC events were only 4 or 5
rounds, we usually went prepared with 5 new openings we'd never played
before. That stopped a lot of funny business, but not all.
I think that in one respect, this "comes with the territory." Just like
being a politician or anything else. As your "height" increases, so does
your visibility. And you become a better target.
This is not to say that I like this particular aspect of computer chess,
I don't. I've spent a lot of time in Crafty to stop "killer" book lines,
by giving it hundreds of thousands of games to choose its openigs from,
and the flexibility to choose randomly (and hopefully, most of the time,
wisely.) I'm continuing to work at this, and am studying ways to have
it learn to avoid bad opening lines without learning to become too
predictable, which won't work on a large server like ICC. I've had lots
of problems with 1. e4 e5 2. c4 of late. It's a *very* narrow set of
book lines that gives humans a chance to cook it. I've taken evasive
action, however. :) Just want crafty to start evading "on its own"
so I can go back to the engine again.
Robert Hyatt
Dirk Frickenschmidt (di...@jimknopf.wupper.de) wrote:
: Hi Bob,
:
: you know things too good to agree with someone who clearly shows he has not
: even understood the problem (cooking against *past* versions of others
: without any possible defence for them and getting points which do not have
: much in common with the prgrams playing strength). It is a massive
: misunderstanding to treat the whole thing as a nice little competition
: between programs and programmers!!
I agree. there are two distinct issues: (1) winning tournaments for the
sake of winning tournaments, which is what I did with CB, and what I hope to
do with Crafty; (2) distort my SSDF rating in a favorable way to make my
program look better, resulting in better sales.
(1) happens all the time; (2) is/can be a real problem. However, part of
the problem is caused by the "trust" placed in the SSDF ratings. I'm reminded
of several software engineering texts that talk about measuring productivity.
Lines of Code is one standard measure, but it is a *very* poor one. It produces
large (unnecessarily large) codes since every line makes you look better, rather
than trying to make the code smaller and more efficient. No matter what "metric"
you use to measure productivity, these clever "humans" will find a way to turn
that to their advantage in a way that will negatively affect the project, but
positively affects their pocketbook. Ditto for ratings like the SSDF. It is
an interesting exercise, but has likely gotten so distorted that the rankings
don't have much to do with program strength, except that those near the top are
good, those near the bottom are not so good. However, to take two numbers like
2395 and 2402 and say the 2402 player is better is actually pretty funny when
you think about it. And that's the resolution we are seeing at the top, and
everyone takes that 7 point spread as significant, when it isn't. A 50 point
spread seems to not mean much in light of repeated games and book cooks. Maybe
even 100 points doesn't mean anything now. And yet the numbers are treated as
absolute measurements, accurate to the nearest "Elo point" of *exactly* how
two programs compare.
The rating system can't be fixed easily, everyone simply has to become familiar
with what the SSDF ratings show, what they don't show, and act accordingly. I'm
already pissed that I can't walk away from my lawn mower because some idiot in
Washington passed a law that supposedly prevents that mower from backing up over
me and amputating my feet. If I let go on a hill, I ought to get run over.
Education works better than legislation every time. Don't use the SSDF to
figure out which is really best, unless you want to know "out of that pool of
programs which wins the most games among themselves." Don't extrapolate to
answer "which would play the best game against Kasparov?" The data isn't
there...
:
: Please note: for me as a computer programs user there is simply *nothing*
Ed Schröder
: I obviously don't pay as much attention to 32 ELO points as you do!
: I removed the opponents you and Eric pointed out. And I just wanted to
:show that it is not a question of hundreds of points. I just feel that
:you are overreacting about this.
I said "100 ELO points and maybe more", not hundreds :)
Lets keep it on 100 than :)
Since the book cooking works on EVERY program I find this quite
acceptable.
: In my last letter I presented the current results for Rebel8. I am sure
:of that you can agree with me that some of them are good and some of them
:are worse for your program. The result against MCPro5/486 (19-1) is
indeed
:a very good one, while for instance the result against your own
:Decade (12-8) is below the average level.
Yes both results are crazy!
It sometimes happens also on my own testings.
That's why I like your policy so much to play hundreds of games!
It is needed to exclude statistical errors.
Very good.
:Let me just put in, that 19-0 is not the result we received. Our result
:was 16.5-3.5, which of course also is a very good result for MCPro5.
:Did you only get two different games out of 19? Do you mean one win as
:white and one win as black for MChess? Or did you only let MChess play
:from the white side?
The 19-0 is only the Mchess5 (white) part which finally was 2-0 after
removing the (17) doubles.
>I know the whole subject is a pain.
>- Ed Schroder -
: Yes, it is a pain! But your suggestion doesn't solve this at all. You
:seem to forget, that also the losses of MChess can be repeated.
Correct, and if you remove these doubles (won, draw or lost) you will
exclude that part, INCLUDING the cooks! Remember a cooked line can only
gain just *ONE* win and not *FIVE* , *SEVEN* or more.
:Or do you have any indication of that MChess avoids repeating it's
:losses or draws and only repeats it's wins?
I wouldn't know.
: It is true, that MChess takes advantage of weaknesses in other
program's
:openinglibrarys and early mistakes just after the opening. This hadn't
been
:possible, if the other programs had played more openinglines and also had
:played more randomely during the game.
I do not think "the other programs" are to blame, they did not start
the cooking :)
: I could just add, that also human players take advantage of a certain
:program's lack of variety.
:And I don't think that anybody can judge this as unfair!
I agree but there is a HUGE difference:
^^^^
Humans can defend themselves, old versions NOT!!
They will be losing their games OVER and OVER on these cookings!!
Should old programs versions like Genius2/3, Hiarcs3, Rebel6 etc. etc.
a) not be used for testing on SSDF at all?
b) not be used for testing on SSDF against all new released versions?
It's obvious that these *OLD* versions can't defend themselves against
book cooking, resulting in new crazy scores and gain a NEW FREE 32
ELO POINTS against the 4 above mentioned programs if the book in question
remains unchanged on these killer lines.
I am not saying that "removing double games" is a PERFECT solution!
Neither I am saying that excluding old versions is THE solution.
Just like you I am searching for a solution to deal with this new
development and to KEEP SSDF the best list in the world!
You guys (40 if I remember well!) have my highest admiration for all the
work you do now and did in the past! You always have given us a list that
comes very very close to the real truth of the playing strength of chess
programs. Thanks a lot for that!
- Ed Schroder -
MCHESS PRO
Reply by Sandro Necchi to Shroeder's "The MCHESS5 computer killer
book...":
1. Ed did not make a fair article, because if the opening preparation
could bring the results he wrote M-Chess 5.0 would have been much higher
in the SSDF list.
2. It is not true that I told someone, in Aegon, how to out-book other
programs and that M-Chess 5.0 would be no. 1 on the list due to that. The
last time I was in Aegon was April-May 1994, some months before the
release of M-Chess 4.0!!
I told Jeroen Noomen (the Rebel opening book editor) that I believed
M-Chess 4.0 would be better than 3.5, also to book improvements, as tests
showed. I think the difference is quite high.
3. Ed did not say that opening book preparation against other programs is
made by all opening book editors, not only by me. Did anyone forget how
well scoring was Hiarcs 3.0 against M-Chess 4.0 due to specific and long
opening book moves preparation? Not to say about Genius etc...
Rebel 8 is no exception, so since he is doing the same why is he
criticizing M-Chess!!!!! THIS IS FAR MORE DISGUSTING!!!!!
4. We did not make any protest or criticism about other people's opening
preparation, even when we were faced with specific opening books like in
Paderborn by the Genius team, because this is allowed by chess!!
5. Opening books have disadvantages and advantages, like everything, but I
believe they are welcome by the chess program owners because they help the
program to play more human -like and from my point of view more fun.
6. Anyone can play chess the way they like and this does not give the
right to criticize other people, even to a great programmer like Ed.
7. Going back to opening books, since this preparation against other
programs is made by everyone it is a lie to make other people believe that
this has given to M-Chess 5.0 100 points advantage. Sorry, but nobody can
do it!!
8. Also, to say that I look at other programs play and when they make a
mistake I add moves to the book is not true at all. I have another system
and I prepare the book thinking more about human players, than computers!!
This poor explanation of how I improve the M-Chess opening book, by Ed,
simply means he does not know M-Chess 5.0 enough, but I am not willing to
explain my secrets.
9. Ed, Marty is spending all year to improve the M-Chess program and you
will see it with M-Chess 6.0 wich is killing Rebel 8.0, quite often, in
all phases of the game!
10. Ed, Opening books are becoming more important due to strength
increase, like it or not!!
-Sandro Necchi
\
MCHESS PRO
Reply by Marty Hirsch to Shroeder's "The MCHESS5 computer killer book...":
1. M-Chess is not the only program that prepares against other programs.
2. We do not prepare traps, we only prepare lines we believe to be
objectively strong. We DO NOT hunt for mistakes by other programs.
3. Contrary to what I've seen in this newsgroup, the Urusoff Gambit is a
marvelous sacrifice. If you are a serious chess player I strongly
recommend you to study the M-Chess repertoire: 1) to learn a very exciting
variation which you might well enjoy playing and winning with! and 2) to
consider how you might defend against this should you encounter it in a
tournament. An important goal of the M-Chess Opening Book is to assist
you, the chess enthusiast, to develop a winning repertoire of your own.
4. Having a successful opening book should not be considered a
disadvantage. How can it be that strong openings by MChess are to be
termed "book cooks" and removed from consideration, while the opening
preparations of other programs such as Rebel 8.0 are to be accepted
without comment?
5. With regard to duplicate games: There are no chess tournaments where
you are forbidden to repeat an opening, or to vary your play once your
opponent is out-of-book. According to Mr. Schroeder, it is somehow unfair
for MChess to do either of these things. It seems to me that the learning
features make MChess more fun and more interesting.
6. MChess 5.0 won the championship in Paderborn against a field of mostly
amateurs who had prepared against MChess, not the other way around.
7. MChess 5.0 won the playoff in Paderborn against a "killer book"
prepared by the Genius team. M-Chess was out of book on move 11, Genius
on move 22, but M-Chess 5.0 still won the game and the title.
8. MChess Pro 5.0 won first place (decisively) over Genius, Rebel, and
Hiarcs in two out of two round-robin matches against the Finnish National
chess team. Clearly, its strength does not depend on opening preparation
against known opponents.
-Marty Hirsch
graham_laight
Eric Hallsworth's list should, in theory, work against programs with cooked
books, because it also takes games against humans into account. Cooked books
would be expected to get worse results against humans.
I think I'm right in saying that Mchess never quite got to the top of Eric's
list. Speaking as a subscriber to "Selective Search", and since I trust Eric's
honesty, I see Eric's list as a better list than the Swedish one.
If I had a chess computer in the market, I would offer cooked lines against
other programs as an option that could be toggled on or off. This would help
to educate the wider public about the issue. I gather that the cooked lines
cannot be turned off in Mchess, and that is bad (for the consumer of the
product). Even so, if a list (like the Swedish one) contains nothing but
information about computers playing each other, the computers SHOULD be allowed
to use their cooked lines. To not do so would result in the cooks being put in
by stealth!
In article <541o4g$h...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, ga...@ix.netcom.com says...
{snipped by Graham}
>
>yeah, okay, but it's not quite that simple.
>
>ed's question is: should he spend his time (or maybe, waste his time) countering
>'killer' lines in other programs that are specifically targeted to make his program
>look bad? Or would he better devote that time to developing the strongest chess
>engine he possibly can?
>
>despite the seductive parallel, human play and computer chess aren't exactly the same.
>Humans, of course, play to gain a tactical advantage and win. Computer programs have
>a slightly different mission: the number of victories they can score in the short run
>is perhaps less important than success in the overall project -- that of creating the
>strongest chess-playing engine possible, over the course of time.
>
>in that sense computer chess is somewhat out of the realm of pure sport -- pure
>winning and losing -- and instead moves more closely to the realm of art, the quest to
>reach an ideal.
>
>***to me, in order to encourage and ultimately achieve that lofty goal, computer chess
>competition should maximize the importance of the programmer's skill and the engine's
>strength, while minimizing all other factors.***
>
>which it already does, to some degree -- running programs on identical machines to
>make the contest 'fair,' for example
>
>now you might say, well, playing a game is playing a game, whether by human or
>machine.
>
>but killer lines aren't invented by machines -- they're invented by humans, special
>humans whose superior positional skill and experience enable them to see through a
>machine's weaknesses, especially in opening play. and, they're static rather than
>dynamic -- they're not part of the 'thinking' of the program, only a guide to that
>thinking with an outside assist.
>
>so killer lines can be seen as kind of human-created crutches (or brass knuckles),
>unbalancing the contest and enabling a given program to perform beyond its inherent
>strength and capacity. they turn computer chess back into human chess.
>
>that's because 'cooked' books, made by people, and then externally appended to the
>engine itself, are not, strictly speaking, making a contribution to the larger mission
>of computer chess itself. developing them is a different challenge than that of
>developing the strongest chess playing engine. while it might be fun once in a while
>to spring such a 'surprise,' when you see two strong programs come out of competition
>at 19-2, you know something is not quite right.
>
>ed's worry -- that cooked books minimize the importance of the chess engine, the
>programmer's crown jewel and masterpiece -- seems reasonable and even a bit alarming.
>if a killer line can actually conceal the playing weakness of a program, it makes any
>tournament nearly meaningles.
>
>ed's question is actually very practical: what should he do? To me, cooked books
>distract from and undermine the unique and ancient dream of creating a chess-playing
>automaton. I really don't want ed, or any other programmer, wasting his time trying
>to find and build in lines which will beat Genius, or MChess, or Hiarcs, or any other
>program, especially if it's at the expense of program development.
>
>if one is interested in seeing the development of the ultimate chess-playing engine,
>it tends to follow that engaging in these short-run tactical skirmishes using cooked
>books -- say, to win the top rating on the SSDF list -- distracts from the central,
>unique mission of programmers.
>
>of course all this has a commercial ramification as well: but knocking off the
>competition in the SSDF list with a program which may be inferior in playing strength
>also seems to defeat the purpose of that list itself. the list then becomes very
>misleading, and could lead astray people who are thinking of buying a program, and who
>look to the SSDF to find the one playing the strongest overall game. it almost
>becomes a problem of truth in advertising, or something.
>
>this discussion actually reaches into a broader area as well, the general problem of
>benchmarking computer chess programs as accurately as possible. of course humans do
>that for themselves in OTB play, but for computers -- still at a very early stage of
>technology -- the problem is slightly different.
>
>Perhaps this discussion will lead to a better, more fair way to test program playing
>strength.
>
>My own feeling is that a true test would limit both programs to the same, standardized
>book -- just as testers use two identical CPU's and hardware systems when running a
>fair contest between programs. Otherwise the result has very little meaning --
>exactly for the same reason that a contest between programs on unequal computers
>doesn't reveal very much.
>
>Such mechanical 'rules' -- like limiting competitors to a standardized opening book,
>are part and parcel of every mature sport, whether limiting sail area, engine size,
>ball size, take your pick. Baseball is played on a standard diamond; it certainly
>hasn't hurt the game. Examples are too numerous to mention. to make a regatta really
>exciting, you limit the amount of sail area any boat can use and make dozens of other
>strict rules to enforce a 'one design' craft: that tends to highlight the competitive
>skill and strategic savvy of each skipper and crew, makes for a more exciting race,
>and tells us to a much greater degree which crew performed best -- which wouldn't
>happen in a race between between big boats, little boats, yawls, catamarans,
>windsurfers and so on. (although all major yacht racing uses complex formulas to
>handicap racing results between differing craft as well...).
>
>something like that seems like a reasonable strategy for computer chess to consider.
>
>to me the central problem with killer lines is that they tend to
>undermine any attempt to measure strength accurately in
>computer-vs-computer chess contests. they also move computer chess
>contests away from the crucial arena of the programmer's skill and the
>engine's strength, and replace it with a much more mundane and
>short-sighted activity.
>
>
>
>-- garb leon
>
>
>
> __
>>john quill taylor / /\
>
brucemo
Ed Schröder wrote:
>
>[snip]
> I have posted all the games in PGN format on a new subject here in RGCC
> in case anybody wants to check them. Just replay the games with Mchess5
> and watch the cooked book lines.
>
> Coming to the GOAL of this posting:
>
> - Is this the future of computer chess?
> - Spending months of our time on cooked books to get a good rating on
> SSDF?
> - Should the programmers of Genius, Hiarcs and Rebel do the same?
>
> I obvious prefer to spend my time on improving the chess engine of Rebel
> rather than spending months of my time looking for weak points in other
> chess programs and add total won lines to the Rebel opening book!
>
> Personally I find this behavior disgusting since it hides the truth of the
> real playing strength of a chess program.
>
> But I really wonder if I have any choice left!
>
> What to do?
>
> Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
> about this subject.
>
> I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
>
> Just confused and worried.
>
> - Ed Schroder -
I agree with you, if the data presented is correct, it's a bad trend. It is
apparently an attempt to falsify matches between MChess and other programs, in
order to gain an artificially inflated ELO rating, in order to mislead consumers
as to how strong MChess will play against THEM.
I don't know what to do about it, other than to ignore the Swedish list.
bruce
brucemo
> On 14 Oct 1996 20:39:44 GMT, ga...@ix.netcom.com(Garby Leon) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >A MODEST PROPOSAL
> >
> >-- Maybe we're looking at the development of two distinct types of
> >computer chess competitions: a "database" competition, where opening
> >books are unlimited, and an "engine power" competition, where books
> >would be carefully limited -- or even STANDARDIZED, WITH ALL
> >COMPETITORS USING THE SAME BOOK -- to provide a level playing field.
I think that when the Swedish Rating List folks are ready to start up another iteration
of their tests, they should send out a list of perhaps fifty (if fifty is too many,
pick another number, I don't care) PGN game fragments to the testers. The final
position in each of these fragments doesn't have to be dead level, although it shouldn't
be a foregone conclusion that one side is going to win, there should still be a lot of
play left in each position.
The tester would then run each game twice, each program involved in the test gets to
play the position once as white and once as black.
May the best program win, and the best program probably would win.
The next time they do an iteration, they would choose a different set of start
positions, of course.
bruce
john quill taylor
The more I think about chess book openings and their history,
I come back to the same central idea: If a line can be "cooked,"
it is a bad line, and does not belong in memory, computer or
human. Period. Once you pre-program your software or your
head to play 1. b3 (for example), you'd better have a solid,
defensible line to follow it up. Otherwise that move does
not belong in your repertoire. Whether a human or a machine
"kills" your inferior line is academic. It might be better
to think of a solid book as one that is bug-free, not just
toward other machines, but to chess in general.
As far as consuming the programmers' time to find the "killer"
book lines--it shouldn't be too difficult to discover these
weaknesses AFTER your competitors' programs are commercially
available. It probably does boil down more to reputation than
anything else. If a programmer works just on cooking books,
eventually the program will not keep pace with the others.
I doubt that most programmers would "share" their entire
books before a tournament, but in a sense they do share it
when the program is sold commercially. Now, if the commercial
program is not identical to the one used in the tournament,
that is another matter. How can we tell when this is the case?
Do we WANT to buy the "basic" program, or the one that was
"tuned" to beat a specific player or machine?
__
john quill taylor / /\
writer at large / / \
Hewlett-Packard, Storage Systems Division __ /_/ /\ \
Boise, Idaho U.S.A. /_/\ __\ \ \_\ \
e-mail: jqta...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com \ \ \/ /\\ \ \/ /
Telephone: (208) 396-2328 (MDT = GMT - 6) \ \ \/ \\ \ /
Snail Mail: Hewlett-Packard \ \ /\ \\ \ \
11413 Chinden Blvd \ \ \ \ \\ \ \
Boise, Idaho 83714 \ \ \_\/ \ \ \
Mailstop 852 \ \ \ \_\/
\_\/
"When in doubt, do as doubters do." - jqt -
haiti, rwanda, cuba, bosnia, ... we have a list,
where is our schindler?
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Hi Goran,
thanks for the information you supplied!
The only real solution I see is an agreement between the nowadays most
important programmers.
Perhaps the whole discussion was good for this?
As far as I can see, Ed and Mark Uniacke have already expressed that they
don't want or need outbooking.
And Richard Lang will shurely agree as well as Chrilly Donninger!
So why shouldn't Marty Hirsch - who has written excellent programs in the
past and will write more in the future - agree as well and tell Sandro he
wants another kind of job from him than outbook lots of other programs.
My trust in the integrity of Marty is that he will agree to make a new
beginning.
Won't you, Marty?
If so, we all will have much more fun from computer games than from the
outbooking-learning-book-combination.
What do you think, Ed Schroeder, Mark Uniacke, Richard Lang, Chrilly
Donninger, Franz Morsch ... and others?
--
Yours Dirk
Goran Grottling <goran.g...@mailbox.swipnet.se> schrieb im Beitrag
<542mg7$h...@mn5.swip.net>...
> In article <53vqco$3...@news.xs4all.nl>, rebc...@xs4all.nl says...
> >
> At the moment the only "book cooking" program is Mchess5.
> >I have explained this in detail in my previous posting including a lot
> >of examples and complete games.
> >
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> MChess 5 is not the only "book cooking" program on the Swedish Rating
List.
> Some programmers have put in special killer lines against their most
important
> competitors for more than ten years! It has caused some irritation to me
from
> time to time, but it is very difficult to solve this problem in a way,
that
> everybody could agree upon.
> For example the Mach II (or was it Mach III?) from Fidelity had several
> killerlines against some version of the Novag Expert. I was then worried
about how
> that would affect the rating figure. But when whe had played more than
500 games,
> it only mattered about 5-10 points.
> The conclusion was that it is important to play as many games as
possible against
> as many opponents as possible. Then a biased result will drown in the
flood of games.
> One can say that the team behind MChess (Marty Hirsch/Sandro Necchi)
has made this
> problem bigger, because MChess has killer lines against several
opponents. And many
> of them!
...
> And here is the same list without 170 games for MCPro5:
>
> SAME LIST - GAMES REMOVED! 50820 games played by 156 computers
> Rating + - Games Won
Oppo
> ------ --- --- ----- ---
----
> 1 Genius 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2425 30 -28 606 65%
2318
> 2 Rebel 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2424 32 -31 500 62%
2337
> 3 Rebel 7.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2412 28 -27 671 61%
2330
> 4 Genius 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2408 27 -26 705 65%
2298
> 5 Hiarcs 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2392 30 -30 545 57%
2341
> 6 Genius 4.0 486/50-66 MHz 2391 31 -31 516 60%
2319
> 7 Hiarcs 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2389 32 -31 505 58%
2330
> 8 Nimzo 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2388 30 -29 577 60%
2314
> 9 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz * 2386 31 -30 529 62%
2302
> 10 MChess Pro 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2367 30 -30 538 54%
2341
> 11 Genius 3.0 486/50-66 MHz 2363 25 -24 850 64%
2263
> 12 Fritz 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2361 29 -29 593 55%
2324
> 13 R30 v. 2.5 2353 52 -48 215 68%
2223
>
> 9 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2386
> Rebel 7.0 P90 8.5-11.5 Genius 4 P90 10-10 Hiarcs 4 P90
6.5-13.5
> Geniu4 486/66 9.5-10.5 Nimzo 3.0 P90 6-14 MCPro 4.0 P90
9-11
> Fritz 3.0 P90 12.5-7.5 R30 v. 2.5 8-12 Rebel7 486/66
11.5-8.5
> MCPro5 486/66 10-10 Kallis198 P90 11-9 WChess P90
6-14
> MCPr40 486/66 12-8 Fritz 4.0 P90 2-4 WChess 486/66
14.5-5.5
> CM30 King 2.0 21-8 ChGen1 486/66 22-8 MCPr35 486/66
15.5-4.5
> Fritz3 486/66 12-8 Lyon 68030 15-5 Comet32 P90
14.5-5.5
> Kallis 486/66 33-7 SPARC 20 MHz 14.5-5.5 Meph. RISC
18.5-1.5
> Chess M. King 4-0 Sapphire 19.5-0.5
>
>
> The "cooking" has this far given MCPro5 32 ratingpoints, (and not more
than 100!)
> 32 points is not much, but of course it looks much better to be No 2 than
No 9!
>
> Well, I will follow this thread hoping that anybody will have an
acceptable
> solution to take out the plus effect of killer books! Of course I also am
inte-
> rested in "the real" playing strength of the programs. But please
remember, that
> the opening library must be one part of this strength.
>
>
> Goran Grottling (who once started the SSDF rating list...)
>
> PS. BTW, I can confirm your news about Rebel8 on the next rating list.
After 511
> games it has a rating of 2479 and is indeed the new Number One! Here are
our results
> so far:
>
> 1 Rebel 8.0 Pentium 90 MHz, 2479
> Genius 3 P90 11.5-8.5 MCPro 5.0 P90 13.5-6.5 Rebel 6.0 P90
10.5-9.5
> Rebel 7.0 P90 12.5-7.5 Genius 4 P90 9.5-10.5 CM5000 P90
1.5-0.5
> Hiarcs 4 P90 11.5-8.5 Geniu4 486/66 11.5-8.5 Nimzo 3.0 P90
13.5-6.5
> Hiarcs 3 P90 10.5-9.5 MCPro 4.0 P90 15-5 Geniu3 486/66
15-5
> Fritz 3.0 P90 15.5-4.5 Rebel7 486/66 15-5 MCPro5 486/66
19-1
> Geniu2 486/66 11.5-8.5 Kallis198 P90 15-5 WChess P90
11-9
> Hiarc3 486/66 15-5 Rebel6 486/66 14-6 ChGen1 486/66
9.5-1.5
> Decade P90 12-8 MCPr35 486/66 15.5-4.5 Fritz3 486/66
17-3
> Lyon 68030 14-6 Kallis 486/66 20.5-3.5 SPARC 20 MHz
10-3
> Meph. RISC 1-0
>
> Next official list will appear October 23.
>
>
>
>
>
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Hi Bob,
beeing in time trouble, I can only answer some points in short:
To be, the overall "behaviour" of an engine is the decisive thing.
And you are right to assume I will not just be looking at the swedish list.
I wrote some chess articles and a beginners book about computer chess some
years ago and developed my own kind of testing.
For example, I proved the tactical strength of the Superconny of other
programs of its time by a then completely new kind of test:
using a tested human pure tatcics test rating for computers (the so-called
Colditz-test, some of its postions later beeing in the so-called BT
tactical test).
I also introduced the idea of "Thema-Turniere" (not knowing how you call
playing with a certain opening for all) to the "Computer-Schach & Spiele"
journal.
I only mention this to indicate I'm no freak staring at Swedish Elo-Points
all the time.
And as I said, playing style is very important to me soon as playing
strength is amoung let's say top twenty.
But what I hate nevertheless is real advanced book cooking: this kind of
thing tells nothing about the machine (instaed some about the book cook)
and obscures in fact playing strength as well as playing style.
It has *nothing* in common with the kind of engine of the program, and
*this* is what disturbs me a lot!
It's an absolutely worthless feature, and not that nonsense of "fight or
die" some mad stars-and-stripes liked to make of it recently.
It's simply a stupid job good for nothing at all...
And it does make a not acceptable difference in Elo-Points!
(Compare Eds and Goran's mails concerning this!)
So why shouldn't you programmers agree not to use something that much
boring?
P.S. I promise to have a look at Crafty after the "Rigorosum" (oral exam)
of my dissertation is done...
Yours Dirk
--
Yours Dirk
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
<541lhp$f...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
> Dirk Frickenschmidt (di...@jimknopf.wupper.de) wrote:
> : Hi Kevin,
> :
...
> : For me it's something completely else: My only interest is that in the
> : playing style and playing strength of a program (and as long as
strength is
> : ok - not necesarily best - I'm looking at style in first place).
>
> Good point. One of my old favorites was Dave Kittingers
SuperConstellation
> that would play speculative attacking sacrifices. You had to watch h7
with
> a careful eye. :) Most programs nowadays don't behave like this. I did
> have a pretty marvelous version of Crafty a few months back that was
attacking
> left and right. Lost too many games however, but the "style" was quite
> flamboyant... almost Tal-like.
>
> :
> : Mchess would be an attractive program without killer booking as well,
> : although I doubt it ever was strong enough for the first place in the
> : Swedish list. It was simply perfect for the Swedish way of testing
:-)))
> : But the only reason why I bought it is the remaining playing strength
and
> : style after diregarding the whole cooking. It's okay for me if a
> : programmer's team adopts the book to the playing style: not anything
> : more!!!
> :
>
> It's still hellishly strong. There's little difference between Rebel,
> Mchess Pro, Genius, and others. Not enough that you could really tell
> the difference by looking at the games, until you get to know each
program
> well enough to understand each one's unique differences. I'm beginning
to
> develop a "feel" for Rebel 8, ChessMaster 5000, Genius 4 and Fritz 4,
based
> on hundreds of games played by Lonnie against Crafty. Each one has its
> own set of strengths and weaknesses, and these even change from version
to
> version...
>
> : So I'm definitely not interested in this kind of programming and if it
goes
> : on like this it will sooner or later have influence on my decision:
simply
> : not to buy this kind of programs any more.
> :
> : By the way: the learning function regularly produces more stupid stuff
than
> : interesting games.
> : If you ever saw the variations on one variation produced by two
computers,
> : the results are in my eyes in 80% of the games boring, in 15%
ridiculous
> : and in 5% interesting. I'm simply not interested in this kind of
opening
> : études either.
> :
> : All in all: I'm happy to see the real playing strength and style of
> : programs after
> : a) switching off learning functions immediately
> : b) using variety books instead of tornament book
> : c) playing tournaments with certain openings for black and white and
then
> : switching off beoth books.
> :
> : Yours Dirk!
> :
>
> You'd love Crafty then. Unfortunately, it's book is *so* wide, it gets
> into more trouble than Dennis the Menace. Makes for interesting games,
> and for interesting losses too.. :)
>
>
Albert Silver
> An important goal of the M-Chess Opening Book is to assist
> you, the chess enthusiast, to develop a winning repertoire of your own.
I'm not going to comment on all of the elements of the post but I would
like to relate an experience in which I tried to do just what Mr Hirsch
suggests a few years ago shortly after purchasing Mchess Pro 3.5. Being
short of material with which to study openings I decided to make use of
Mchess Pro's opening book to learn opening theory. I followed the
variations to the end and found that one side was usually quite lost!
After the experience repeated itself a few times I gave up on the idea
as I realized I couldn't quite expect my potential opponents to know all
of this "theory" and thus follow these lines to their bitter end. I'd
also like to point out that this strongly influenced my decision a month
ago when I decided to purchase two programs and chose Genius 4.0 and
Rebel 8.0.
Albert Silver
Garby Leon
Sounds good to me!
And the positions could be chosen at random, making the test 'double
blind.'
Plus, if the openings skewed the results in any way (say one created a
consistent dead win for any computer that played black), it would be
obvious immediately.
regards,
-- garb
Ed Schröder
Dear Sandro,
You must be kidding!
Remember who said:
"Opening preparation against commercial opponents matters somewhat, but
not as much as one might expect, because an SSDF rating is based on
hundreds of games against at least twenty opponents."
:Reply by Sandro Necchi to Shroeder's "The MCHESS5 computer killer
:book...":
:1. Ed did not make a fair article, because if the opening preparation
:could bring the results he wrote M-Chess 5.0 would have been much higher
:in the SSDF list.
Ed did wrote a fair article since the above is not correct!
See my comments below.
:2. It is not true that I told someone, in Aegon, how to out-book other
:programs and that M-Chess 5.0 would be no. 1 on the list due to that. The
:last time I was in Aegon was April-May 1994, some months before the
:release of M-Chess 4.0!!
You told so to Jeroen, it was indeed 1994 and not 1995. I have checked
Jeroen again and your exact words were:
"We will book out all programs and we will be the new no.1 on SSDF"
:I told Jeroen Noomen (the Rebel opening book editor) that I believed
:M-Chess 4.0 would be better than 3.5, also to book improvements, as
:tests showed. I think the difference is quite high.
Nothing wrong with a good opening book!
But a cooked book?
:3. Ed did not say that opening book preparation against other programs is
:made by all opening book editors, not only by me. Did anyone forget how
:well scoring was Hiarcs 3.0 against M-Chess 4.0 due to specific and long
:opening book moves preparation? Not to say about Genius etc...
Of course I can't speak for Mark or Richard but maybe you can place the
cooked games here in RGCC. A few days ago I have placed 30-40 Mchess5
games here in RGCC so people can check already many of your cooks.
:Rebel 8 is no exception, so since he is doing the same why is he
:criticizing M-Chess!!!!! THIS IS FAR MORE DISGUSTING!!!!!
As explained in a previous posting when I saw all the book cooks of
Mchess5 on Rebel6 (and also on Genius3 and Hiarcs3) I ordered my book
editor Jeroen Noomen to:
a) avoid all your cooks (they are quite "genius" I must say!)
b) Add 2-3 cooks EXCLUSIVELY on Mchess5 as a suggestion to you to stop
this development. I assume you have found them already :)
Despite of the 2-3 book lines as mentioned above the Rebel8 opening book
is a normal human alike opening book WITHOUT ANY COOK AT ALL ON COMPUTER
OPPONENTS!
At least I play with open cards.
Hope you do the same, just say you prepare on computer opponents and we
can close this discussion. Remember the games are against you!!
It would have been SO easy for me to take ALL YOUR MCHESS5 COOKED LINES
and put them in MY opening book!!!
Rebel8 scored now on SSDF with Mchess5 cooks
Genius 3 P90 11.5-8.5 13-7
Rebel 6.0 P90 10.5-9.5 16-4
Hiarcs 3 P90 10.5-9.5 16.5-3.5
These old programs can not defend themselves and Rebel8 would have
earned an extra 32 ELO points. No?
:4. We did not make any protest or criticism about other people's opening
:preparation, even when we were faced with specific opening books like in
:Paderborn by the Genius team, because this is allowed by chess!!
That is a different story, the subject now is SSDF!!
My point is that matches like Mchess5-Rebel6, Mchess5-Hiarcs3 the result
is ALREADY KNOWN BEFORE the match is started! These (old) programs can
not defend themselves against your cooks! All the work is done at home.
No escape possible. Do you deny this?
:5. Opening books have disadvantages and advantages, like everything, but
I
:believe they are welcome by the chess program owners because they help
the
:program to play more human -like and from my point of view more fun.
Of course.
:6. Anyone can play chess the way they like and this does not give the
:right to criticize other people, even to a great programmer like Ed.
Sandro, this whole subject started by the initial posting of Marty who
said:
"Opening preparation against commercial opponents matters somewhat, but
not as much as one might expect, because an SSDF rating is based on
hundreds of games against at least twenty opponents."
Great programmer or not, this is *NOT* true and I think I have the right
to say that. I have seen enough, I have enough evidence of that. It does
not "matters somewhat", it matters a LOT!
:7. Going back to opening books, since this preparation against other
:programs is made by everyone it is a lie to make other people believe
that
:this has given to M-Chess 5.0 100 points advantage. Sorry, but nobody can
:do it!!
Maybe you should read Goran's posting, he removed all results between
Mchess5 against Rebel6, Genius2/3 and Hiarcs3. This already would drop
Mchess5 with 32 ELO points! Read again: already 32 ELO points on just 4
programs! I think my estimate of a 100 ELO points gain is pretty good.
:8. Also, to say that I look at other programs play and when they make a
:mistake I add moves to the book is not true at all. I have another system
:and I prepare the book thinking more about human players, than
computers!!
You said something totally different to Jeroen Noomen! At the end of
this posting I have placed the statistics I have made after AUTO232
matches between Mchess5 against Genius3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3. Just in
case you have missed them.
Mchess5 comes with scores like +8.77 or even with Mate in N moves out
of the book, book lines are based on computer mistakes you simply
add to the Mchess5 book. They are of course no theory at all.
:This poor explanation of how I improve the M-Chess opening book, by Ed,
:simply means he does not know M-Chess 5.0 enough, but I am not willing
:to explain my secrets.
I assume you meant cooking, no I indeed do not want to now that at all.
In fact I hate book cooking since it hides the truth on the real
playing strength of a chess program.
:9. Ed, Marty is spending all year to improve the M-Chess program and you
:will see it with M-Chess 6.0 wich is killing Rebel 8.0, quite often, in
:all phases of the game!
Also if I offer SSDF a new book for Rebel8 after a few months?
Could be very convincing don't you think? :)
A Rebel8.SSDF version, hmm, who knows.
:10. Ed, Opening books are becoming more important due to strength
:increase, like it or not!!
Of course I agree here, but I prefer NO BOOK COOKING on COMPUTER
OPPONEMTS.
: -Sandro Necchi
Ok, I have answered all your 10 questions, I have only two:
1) Will Mchess6 still contain all the Mchess5 book cooks? In case of yes
Mchess6 will again the same huge scores against Rebel6, Hiarcs3
and Genius2/3. As Goran already explained this is 32 ELO points.
Not bad!
2) Will Mchess6 also contain cooks on Rebel7, Hiarcs4 and Genius4 too?
Or maybe, just maybe, you have removed all cooks?
This would make my day and also a lot of concerned people!
Read all the postings here, listen to your customers, the majority
does not like what you are doing!
I also will shut up immediately since the problem is solved.
Sandro here are the satistics again in case you have missed them, the
complete games can be found in RGCC too. Maybe you should take a look
at the games which are very self explaining.
Please note that the games are played in SSDF style so you will see
many duplicates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Match Mchess5 - Genius3
Level 40 in 2:00
Machine 2 x P90 (identical)
Move = The move number where Mchess5 left the book.
Score = The score of the first Mchess5 move after leaving the book.
Game Move Score Result
---- ---- ----- ------
1 25 + 3.21 1-0
2 25 + 3.21 1-0
3 27 + 0.55 draw
4 46! + 3.26 draw
5 24 +11.53! 1-0
6 18 +11.04! 1-0
7 18 + 0.14 draw
8 18 +11.04 1-0
9 23 + 0.66 0-1
10 19 + Mat9!!! 1-0
Mchess5 - Genius3 7.5 - 2.5
------------------------------------------------
Match Mchess5 - Hiarcs3
Level 40 in 2:00
Machine 2 x P90 (identical)
Move = The move number where Mchess5 left the book.
Score = The score of the first Mchess5 move after leaving the book.
Game Move Score Result
---- ---- ----- ------
1 28 +14.32 1-0
2 25 + 8.53 1-0
3 24 + 8.80 1-0
4 18 + 1.01 1-0
5 24 + 8.53 1-0
6 25 + 2.20 1-0
7 29 + 2.20 1-0
8 29 + 7.33 1-0
9 35 + 7.33 1-0
10 35 + 7.33 1-0
11 25 + 8.53 1-0
12 29 + 2.20 1-0
13 35 + 7.33 1-0
14 35 + 7.33 1-0
15 35 + 7.33 1-0
16 35 + 7.33 1-0
17 25 + 8.53 1-0
18 18 + 1.01 1-0
19 25 + 8.53 1-0
Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 19 - 0 I find this unacceptable.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Match Mchess5 - Rebel6
Level 40 in 2:00
Machine 2 x P90 (identical)
Move = The move number where Mchess5 left the book.
Score = The score of the first Mchess5 move after leaving the book.
Game Move Score Result
---- ---- ----- ------
1 16 + 0.33 1-0
2 16 + 1.29 1-0
3 19 + Mat8!!! 1-0
4 16 + 7.45!! 1-0
5 28 + 1.49 1-0
6 19 + Mat8!!! 1-0
7 17 + 0.90 1-0
8 19 + Mat8!!! 1-0
9 13 + 0.00 draw
10 19 + Mat8!!! 1-0
11 16 + 1.29 1-0
12 19 + Mat8!!! 1-0
13 17 + 0.88 1-0
14 28 + 1.39 draw
Mchess5 - Rebel6 13 - 1 Also unacceptable
-----------------------------------------------------------
Awaiting your reply.
Best regards,
- Ed Schroder -
posted in RGCC
posted to mche...@aol.com (MCHESS PRO)
Garby Leon
In <546vqv$l...@juniper.cis.uab.edu> hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert
Hyatt) writes:
>
>Garby Leon (ga...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>:
>: Plus, if the openings skewed the results in any way (say one created
>: a consistent dead win for any computer that played black), it would
>: be obvious immediately.
>:
>: regards,
>:
>: -- garb
>Wouldn't even be a problem, because both programs would get the black
>side of that opening and if the game is really busted, each would get
>one point, which wouldn't bias anything too much...
Right - but it would show the position was faulty in that it didn't
give the programs a chance to 'fight.'
Ideally, of course, you'd want startup positions where the stronger
program would have a chance to win both sides.
Ed Schröder
Dear Marty,
:Reply by Marty Hirsch to Shroeder's "The MCHESS5 computer killer
book...":
:1. M-Chess is not the only program that prepares against other programs.
:2. We do not prepare traps, we only prepare lines we believe to be
:objectively strong. We DO NOT hunt for mistakes by other programs.
I think you do.
Just one example...
Mchess5 - Genius3
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5
Be7 7.Nc3 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4 Be6 10.Rhe1 h6 11. Bd3 O-O
12.Bxh6 Ne4 13.Qh5 g6 14. Qe5 Bf6 15.Qf4 Nxc3 16.Rxe6 fxe6
17.Qg4 g5 18.Nxg5 Kh8 19.Qh5 Nxa2+ 20.Kb1 Nc3+ 21.bxc3 Qb6+
22.Kc1 Qb2+ 23. Kxb2 Bxc3+ 24.Kb3 Nd7 25.Bxf8+ Kg8 26.Qf7+
Kh8 27.Qh7# 1-0
After the stupid 11.. 0-0?? black is lost after 12.Bxh6!
Is this theory?
I guess not.
All programs like Hiarcs3, Genius3, Rebel6 ETC. ETC. castle here and
lost MANY MANY times on this book line on SSDF.
Any ELO 1500 rated human player never would play 11..0-0??
Still the Mchess5 book comtinues many many moves.
In the above game Mchess comes out of book on move 19 with a Mate
in N moves. More examples available if needed.
It's a cook on computer opponents, no doubt about it.
:3. Contrary to what I've seen in this newsgroup, the Urusoff Gambit is a
:marvelous sacrifice. If you are a serious chess player I strongly
:recommend you to study the M-Chess repertoire: 1) to learn a very
exciting
:variation which you might well enjoy playing and winning with! and 2) to
:consider how you might defend against this should you encounter it in a
:tournament. An important goal of the M-Chess Opening Book is to assist
:you, the chess enthusiast, to develop a winning repertoire of your own.
:4. Having a successful opening book should not be considered a
:disadvantage. How can it be that strong openings by MChess are to be
:termed "book cooks" and removed from consideration, while the opening
:preparations of other programs such as Rebel 8.0 are to be accepted
:without comment?
I already explained this in detail several times here in RGCC.
Here we go again:
As explained in a previous posting when I saw all the book cooks of
Mchess5 on Rebel6 (and also on Genius3 and Hiarcs3) I ordered my book
editor Jeroen Noomen to:
a) avoid all your cooks (they are quite "genius" I must say!)
b) Add 2-3 cooks EXCLUSIVELY on Mchess5 as a suggestion to you to stop
this development. I assume you have found them already :)
Despite of the 2-3 book lines as mentioned above the Rebel8 opening book
is a normal human alike opening book WITHOUT ANY COOK AT ALL ON COMPUTER
OPPONENTS!
At least I play with open cards.
Hope you do the same, just say you prepare on computer opponents and we
can close this discussion. Remember the games are against you.
:5. With regard to duplicate games: There are no chess tournaments where
:you are forbidden to repeat an opening, or to vary your play once your
:opponent is out-of-book. According to Mr. Schroeder, it is somehow
unfair
:for MChess to do either of these things. It seems to me that the
learning
:features make MChess more fun and more interesting.
Mr. Schroeder did not say that!
He said that "not counting double games" on SSDF is a possible solution
to handle cooked book lines and that you can argue about that! Quite a
difference :)
:6. MChess 5.0 won the championship in Paderborn against a field of mostly
:amateurs who had prepared against MChess, not the other way around.
I fully agree, this is a pain too!
:7. MChess 5.0 won the playoff in Paderborn against a "killer book"
:prepared by the Genius team. M-Chess was out of book on move 11, Genius
:on move 22, but M-Chess 5.0 still won the game and the title.
There is a HUGE difference between getting the opponent out of book as
soon as possible and book cooking on COMPUTER opponents.
The "Ruy Lopez / Crafty attack" comes into mind :)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bc4!!
Very original and accepted since after 4.Bc4! Crafty is mostly out of
book after a few moves without any computer cook!
However it would have been a bad thing if Bob had build a huge range
of book lines with all kind of COMPUTER OPPONENT traps on the
4.Bc4! theme, resulting in a score of +7.31 or soo on move 22. This I
call book cooking. Bob did not.
This is exactly what happened on the Mchess5 "1.e4 e5 2.Bc4" theme!
I do not understand why Sandro Necchi (your book editor) who was so open
and honest to Jeroen Noomen (the Rebel book editor) on Aegon 1994 and
now is denying everthing?
In Mchess5 I have seen several opening names with "smashing?" names
like: "Bishop Game, Necchi attack". Other so called "Necchi attacks"
book names examples are available. This at least tells me these lines
are not common theory.
My point is that if you have cooked lines on computer opponents why
don't you say that openly as Sandro did in 1994?
At least I admit OPENLY I have ordered Jeroen to put 2-3 book cooks
EXCLUSIVELY on Mchess5. Simply a piece of your own cake as a serious
suggestion to stop this cooking on computer opponents.
This whole discussion we have now will hurt us ALL.
a) It will hurt me, because I have attacked a highly respected chess
programmer like Marty Hirsch!
b) It will hurt you.
c) And what I find most important "It will hurt the image of computer
chess!!"
Knowing this all on before hand I still find it very very important
to deal with it now, to discuss the matter openly and find solutions
before it will hurt the image of computer chess TOO MUCH!!
I mean you can not expect from other chess programmers after watching
these crazy SSDF results like:
Mchess5 P90 - Rebel 6.0 P90 16-4
Mchess5 P90 - Hiarcs 3 P90 16.5-3.5
Mchess5 P90 - Genius 3 P90 13-7
that we sit down and do nothing??
As said before should I join the book cooking you started?
I think the answer is a clear *NO* from my side.
I like to release my opening books clean from every computer opponenent
cook! But things may change if this new development you started will
become common if other chess programmers start doing the same.
If possible THIS whole discussion we are having now may / can prevent
this ugly thing to happen!
:8. MChess Pro 5.0 won first place (decisively) over Genius, Rebel, and
:Hiarcs in two out of two round-robin matches against the Finnish National
:chess team. Clearly, its strength does not depend on opening preparation
:against known opponents.
I never said anything negative about your chess engine. In fact I think
it's a great chess engine with a very attractive style and that I can
recommand it to every chess lover!
Just remove your cooked book lines.
- Ed Schroder -
:-Marty Hirsch
BTW, I think your new SHUFFLE feature is great!
My compliments.
Robert Hyatt
Robert Hyatt
Dirk Frickenschmidt (di...@jimknopf.wupper.de) wrote:
:
: P.S. I promise to have a look at Crafty after the "Rigorosum" (oral exam)
: of my dissertation is done...
:
: Yours Dirk
If you've followed my posts here over the past two years as Crafty has
evolved, you know that I don't cook books, period. Nor do I "uncook"
them any longer as Bert and I did with Cray Blitz. I'm working on
having Crafty understand which openings suit it's style of play, so
that I can continue to use large PGN files to create the opening
books, rather than hand-coding as we did in years gone by.
For me, then, it's a moot issue. I'm going to use (a) books so very wide
that cooking is nearly impossible, unless the match is going to go on for
thousands of games, because Crafty will have that many different good
alternatives to play; (b) implement book learning (and hopefully, non-
book learning) so that Crafty can learn to avoid those lines that lead
to positions that are not so hot; (c) make this portable so all the
Crafty "clones" playing can share this info among themselves and with me
so we can all learn (and I'll publish specs for the commercial guys to
consider if they want in on this learning action and want to share data.)
Bob
Eric Hallsworth
In article <5450ep$c...@lex.zippo.com>, Graham Laight <?@?> writes
>Eric Hallsworth's list should, in theory, work against programs with cooked
>books, because it also takes games against humans into account. Cooked books
>would be expected to get worse results against humans.
>
is a drop in the ocean compared to the number computer v computer. So
whilst I hope that the inclusion of v human games does a decent job to
determine the overall level of the list, and whilst v human results do
influence both the level of the full list and the individual gradings of
every computer and program, their influence in the latter case is not as
great as probably nearly all of us would like.
>I think I'm right in saying that Mchess never quite got to the top of Eric's
>list. Speaking as a subscriber to "Selective Search", and since I trust Eric's
>honesty, I see Eric's list as a better list than the Swedish one.
>
In fact MCP5 did edge into top place for a couple of months, but is now
back in 4th, though there are only 13 Elo points between the top 5 in my
last Issue..... which was before the Rebel8 results started coming in!
--
Best wishes,
Eric Hallsworth, Computer Chess Magazine, The Red House,
46 High Street, Wilburton, Cambs CB6 3RA
Philippe Beaudoin
Albert Silver wrote:
> I'd also like to point out that this strongly influenced my decision a
> month ago when I decided to purchase two programs and chose Genius 4.0
> and Rebel 8.0.
And be sure I wont buy MChess, even if I was considering it. Just an
advice to MChess people: take 2-3 maketing lessons, your posts in this
group haven't been very attractive to potential customers!
Philippe Beaudoin
Komputer Korner
Ed Schr=F6der wrote:
>snipped =
Ed, even if you get the commercial programmers to all agree, no more
cooked books, there is still the big problem of all the amateur =
kitchens. It will become impossible to police, especially if a
programmer programs into his program a special feature to waste =
time to make it look like the program is thinking when in reality
it is still in it's cooked book.AAAAAAAggggghhhhh!!!!!! Hidden
camouflaged cooked killer books!!!! Oh Oh, I think "I" have just
created a monster. =
-- =
Komputer Korner
The komputer that couldn't kompute the square root of
36^n.
Jay Scott
In article <546vqv$l...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>, Robert Hyatt (hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu) wrote:
>Wouldn't even be a problem, because both programs would get the black
>side of that opening and if the game is really busted, each would get
>one point, which wouldn't bias anything too much...
It would make weak programs appear stronger and strong programs appear
weaker.
Jay Scott <j...@forum.swarthmore.edu>
Machine Learning in Games:
http://forum.swarthmore.edu/~jay/learn-game/index.html
Robert Hyatt
Jay Scott (j...@forum.swarthmore.edu) wrote:
I was responding to the idea of picking a position, then each program
plays the same opponent twice, once from each side. If the position is
busted, the same side would win both games, resulting in a 1-1 split
which would not affect things very much, unless the two programs are
somewhat separated in their ratings. Then the lower-rated program would
get more by winning than it would for losing, and it's rating would go
up more than justified, just like the stronger program's rating would
go down more than justified.
Mark Uniacke
Hi Sandro,
In article <5464s3$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, MCHESS PRO
<mche...@aol.com> writes
>Reply by Sandro Necchi to Shroeder's "The MCHESS5 computer killer
>book...":
>
>1. Ed did not make a fair article, because if the opening preparation
>could bring the results he wrote M-Chess 5.0 would have been much higher
>in the SSDF list.
We saw the affect of removing the matches against just 4 opponents
MChess5 played in the SSDF in a very recent post from Goran Grottling.
Goran said it made 32 Elo points difference. Taking that into account
would drop MChess5 from 2nd to 9th on the current list.
>
>2. It is not true that I told someone, in Aegon, how to out-book other
>programs and that M-Chess 5.0 would be no. 1 on the list due to that. The
>last time I was in Aegon was April-May 1994, some months before the
>release of M-Chess 4.0!!
>
>I told Jeroen Noomen (the Rebel opening book editor) that I believed
>M-Chess 4.0 would be better than 3.5, also to book improvements, as tests
>showed. I think the difference is quite high.
>
>3. Ed did not say that opening book preparation against other programs is
>made by all opening book editors, not only by me. Did anyone forget how
>well scoring was Hiarcs 3.0 against M-Chess 4.0 due to specific and long
>opening book moves preparation? Not to say about Genius etc...
Any "well scoring" achieved by Hiarcs3 over MChess4 was not due to
cooked books.
Hiarcs3 was NOT specifically booked up for MChess4. If it were so
then why did Hiarcs4 do somewhat worse than Hiarcs3?
Or do you believe the alledged "specific and long opening book moves
preparation" was removed from Hiarcs4?
The SSDF scores were:
Hiarcs3 P90 - MCPro4 P90 13.5 - 6.5
Hiarcs3 P90 - MCPro4 486/66 16 - 4
Hiarcs4 P90 - MCPro4 P90 11.5 - 8.5
Hiarcs4 P90 - MCPro4 486/66 10 - 10
Were'nt both programs released at the same time?
Hiarcs3 appears in the British ratings before MChess4,
although the opposite occured in the SSDF list.
I did not even see MChess4 until sometime into 1995.
>
>Rebel 8 is no exception, so since he is doing the same why is he
>criticizing M-Chess!!!!! THIS IS FAR MORE DISGUSTING!!!!!
I have seen no "killer lines" in Rebel8 created for Hiarcs3 or Hiarcs4.
The SSDF match results bare this out.
In fact, it would have been easy for Ed to book up for Hiarcs3 simply by
following the MChess5 lines. The facts are he obviously did NOT.
>
>4. We did not make any protest or criticism about other people's opening
>preparation, even when we were faced with specific opening books like in
>Paderborn by the Genius team, because this is allowed by chess!!
>
>5. Opening books have disadvantages and advantages, like everything, but I
>believe they are welcome by the chess program owners because they help the
>program to play more human -like and from my point of view more fun.
>
>6. Anyone can play chess the way they like and this does not give the
>right to criticize other people, even to a great programmer like Ed.
Ed is entitled to his opinion as much as anyone and has also been kind
enough to back his views with evidence in the form of games.
>
>7. Going back to opening books, since this preparation against other
>programs is made by everyone it is a lie to make other people believe that
>this has given to M-Chess 5.0 100 points advantage. Sorry, but nobody can
>do it!!
This type of preparation is NOT "made by everyone".
>
>8. Also, to say that I look at other programs play and when they make a
>mistake I add moves to the book is not true at all. I have another system
>and I prepare the book thinking more about human players, than computers!!
>
>
>This poor explanation of how I improve the M-Chess opening book, by Ed,
>simply means he does not know M-Chess 5.0 enough, but I am not willing to
>explain my secrets.
>
>9. Ed, Marty is spending all year to improve the M-Chess program and you
>will see it with M-Chess 6.0 wich is killing Rebel 8.0, quite often, in
>all phases of the game!
>
>10. Ed, Opening books are becoming more important due to strength
>increase, like it or not!!
>
>-Sandro Necchi
>
>
>
>\
Best wishes,
Mark
Author of Hiarcs.
Robert Hyatt
Komputer Korner (kor...@netcom.ca) wrote:
:
: Who would pick those equal positions that have lots of chances for
: both sides? Informator doesn't have any symbol for that. You would
: have to hire a GM specially for this.
: --
: Komputer Korner
: The komputer that couldn't kompute the square root of
: 36^n.
This even I could do. You are primarily looking for positions between
10 and 20 moves into a game, where material is even, the position is
not busted for either side, and the kings are reasonably placed, not
trapped in the center for example.
I'd probably produce them using Crafty, for example, by letting it
follow pgn games to move 10, then doing significant searches starting
at that point to make sure the eval was not way out of line. If so,
reject it and play on, otherwise put this into test database and go to
the next game. Stop when test database reaches some acceptable limit.
chessman
Don Fong <df...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in article
<54397q$l...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>...
> In article <01bbbb7c$535c0920$Loca...@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>,
> Moritz Berger <ber...@athene.informatik.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> >Maybe you (the customer) would be pissed off if you bought a product in
the
> >good faith that it had a very strong chess engine (rated #1 on the SSDF
> >list), only to find out that against humans its playing strength is more
> >than 100 SSDF/ELO points below its advertised strength? These killer
> >openings are often quite bad against humans and mean an overall worse
book
> >quality! MChess 5 often plays the French Defense, good against other
> >computers (computers don't play the French very well), bad against
humans.
>
also ...remember that SSDF ratings are from a limited pool of computer
opponents ...thus they do not predict, nor does the SSDF state that these
are expectant ratings against human opponents .....but I agree that the
advertising is not exactly honest about what SSDF ELO ratings really mean
> PMFJI. it seems to me that the core problem here is not with
> MCHESS or with SSDF. the problem is that the human consumer is
> making an incorrect -assumption- that the best program in a computer
> competition will also be the best program in a human competition.
> IMHO that assumption is no more reasonable than -assuming- that
> the best racing bike will also be the best mountain bike. or that
> the best commuter car will also be a good snowmobile.
>
[delete
Komputer Korner
Garby Leon wrote:
>
> In <546vqv$l...@juniper.cis.uab.edu> hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert
> Hyatt) writes:
> >
> >:
> >: Plus, if the openings skewed the results in any way (say one created
> >: a consistent dead win for any computer that played black), it would
> >: be obvious immediately.
> >:
> >: regards,
> >:
> >: -- garb
>
> >side of that opening and if the game is really busted, each would get
> >one point, which wouldn't bias anything too much...
>
> give the programs a chance to 'fight.'
>
> Ideally, of course, you'd want startup positions where the stronger
> program would have a chance to win both sides.
Who would pick those equal positions that have lots of chances for
dwm
Ed Schröder wrote:
>
> Dear Marty,
>
>
> :8. MChess Pro 5.0 won first place (decisively) over Genius, Rebel, and
> :Hiarcs in two out of two round-robin matches against the Finnish National
> :chess team. Clearly, its strength does not depend on opening preparation
> :against known opponents.
>
> I never said anything negative about your chess engine. In fact I think
> it's a great chess engine with a very attractive style and that I can
> recommand it to every chess lover!
>
> Just remove your cooked book lines.
>
> - Ed Schroder -
>
> :-Marty Hirsch
>
> BTW, I think your new SHUFFLE feature is great!
> My compliments.
Based upon what I'm reading, I'm glad to have Rebel 8 and not
MCHESS 5. I wanted a computer game that plays as human like as possible.
Persons I play seldom are in "book" past move 3 to 5.
Ed, I like your answer!!!
And your convictions!! Keep it up!!
David
Anders Thulin
In article <53ting$n...@news.xs4all.nl>, Ed Schröder <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
>Here are the results against:
>Mchess5 - Genius3 (currently no. 1 on SSDF ELO 2420) 7.5 - 2.5
>Mchess5 - Rebel6 (currently no. 3 on SSDF ELO 2415) 13.0 - 1.0
>Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 (currently no. 9 on SSDF ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
>According to the HIGH ratings of Genius3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3 these
>results are IMPOSSIBLE in normal play (without book traps)
No, that's wrong. They are quite possible, but rather improbable,
assuming that Mchess5 is an average opponent. But if Mchess5 is an
non-average opponent, they're neither impossible nor improbable. Elo
rating does not indicate the strength between two players in
particular (who may not even have met), but the general position of a
player in the entire field.
You can se the same things with human players: the score of one
player against one particular other player is sometimes totally out of
register with respect to ELO ratings of the players.
The last parenthesis seems to suggest there's something
fundamentally bad about traps. I can't make out why from your posting.
>I think you all now can see the impact of killer lines and maybe you
>understand my feelings better and my aversion against cooked books.
Not really. I'm not a chess programmer, though, so that might
account for it.
You present data. Fine. But I find no conclusions, or arguments
based on on that data, except the impossibility argument above.
Are you saying that SSDF rating is wrong? To me it appears you use
them in a wrong way - see above. If you believe that there is a
difference between wins and wins, the Elo model is obviously all wrong
for you, as it assumes wins are equal.
Are you saying that Marty Hirsch is wrong? I leave that for others
-- I can't determine myself.
Are you saying that preparing killer books and trap moves is bad?
Killer moves won't work unless the opponent allows them to. Traps may
open, but unless someone steps in them, they won't close. I'm not
clear if you think that that is a flaw in the losing program, but I
assume you do. Removing the flaw seems to be the best way of coping
with the problem. Using Mchess5 seems to be a good way of finding the
flaws in the three programs you mention.
--
Anders Thulin Anders...@lejonet.se 013 - 23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
Alexander Fuchs
Philippe Beaudoin <phil...@bnr.ca> schrieb im Beitrag
<3267B9...@bnr.ca>...
> Albert Silver wrote:
> > I'd also like to point out that this strongly influenced my decision a
> > month ago when I decided to purchase two programs and chose Genius 4.0
> > and Rebel 8.0.
>
> And be sure I wont buy MChess, even if I was considering it.
Yes, that's probably the only way we can get rid of the killer books. Don't
buy the program(s) that have these killer books. Although I like M-chess, I
don't think I am going to buy version 6.
Alexander Fuchs
Anders Thulin
In article <01bbbae1$7214e300$d648e0c2@eil>,
Enrique Irazoqui <en...@bitmailes.net> wrote:
>Whether or not the inclusion of cooked lines in the opening book is a fair
>approach, it may morally be a matter of opinion. In practical terms what I
>find not arguable is that "killer books" give a false idea of the real
>strength of a chess engine.
If strength is measured in some other way than by winning, yes. A
wrestler may be physically stronger than a judo expert, but if the
wrestler is lying down when the match is over, there's no question
about who has won.
Tim Mirabile
Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
Hah! I knew you'd say this. Anyway, unclear or equal positions are good
enough for this purpose. Even if you believe that White scores 56% from
those unclear positions, the fact that each program gets a shot at both
sides will balance out, and the stronger program should score more than 56%
with White and more than 44% with Black. The only real problem I can see
is if you choose an initial position so critical and deep that the outcome
is determined by who happens to pick the correct first move by pure chance.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Mirabile <t...@mail.htp.com> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ |
| TimM on FICS - telnet://fics.onenet.net:5000/ PGP Key ID: B7CE30D1 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Urban Koistinen
Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
ES: Correct, and if you remove these doubles (won, draw or lost) you will
ES: exclude that part, INCLUDING the cooks! Remember a cooked line can only
ES: gain just *ONE* win and not *FIVE* , *SEVEN* or more.
If the SSDF adopted a policy of removing double games, don't you
think a program using cooks would add some randomness to its play
once the game is easily won to avoid having the game removed?
Alexander Fuchs
Eric Hallsworth <er...@elhchess.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Beitrag
<wEsZGAAR...@elhchess.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <5450ep$c...@lex.zippo.com>, Graham Laight <?@?> writes
> >Eric Hallsworth's list should, in theory, work against programs with
cooked
> >books, because it also takes games against humans into account. Cooked
books
> >would be expected to get worse results against humans.
> >
>
> In fact MCP5 did edge into top place for a couple of months, but is now
> back in 4th, though there are only 13 Elo points between the top 5 in my
> last Issue..... which was before the Rebel8 results started coming in!
>
Is this list available on the net ?
What's the difference in approach between your list and the Swedish one ?
Thanks for your reply!
Alexander Fuchs
Bernd Herbst
=============================================================================
> Weitergeleitet durch Bernd Herbst (1001:1/2)
> Brett : "PRIVAT"
> Von : Harald Faber, 64:1/1000.11@chessnet (Freitag, den 18. Oktober 1996
00:19)
> An : Bernd Herbst
> Betr. : Re: The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
=============================================================================
BH> From: "Ed Schr/der" <rebc...@xs4all.nl>
BH> Subject: The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
BH> Organization: Schroder BV
BH>
BH> The MCHESS5 computer killer book...
BH>
BH> Here are the results against:
BH> Mchess5 - Genius3 (currently no. 1 on SSDF ELO 2420) 7.5 - 2.5
BH> Mchess5 - Rebel6 (currently no. 3 on SSDF ELO 2415) 13.0 - 1.0
BH> Mchess5 - Hiarcs3 (currently no. 9 on SSDF ELO 2380) 19.0 - 0.0
BH>
BH> According to the HIGH ratings of Genius3, Rebel6 and Hiarcs3 these
BH> results are IMPOSSIBLE in normal play (without book traps)
Total agreement!!!
BH> Mchess5 - Rebel6 13 - 1 Also unacceptable
Unbelievable!
But clever..
BH> Coming to the GOAL of this posting:
BH>
BH> - Is this the future of computer chess?
Seems to be.. :-(((
BH> - Spending months of our time on cooked books to get a good rating on
BH> SSDF?
Well you can even sell more programs when you lead the SSDF... ;-(
BH> - Should the programmers of Genius, Hiarcs and Rebel do the same?
I guess you are to, if you do not want to be disadvantaged any longer.
In the german chessnet we are not able to confirm MCP5 any kind of
strength like Rebel or Genius.
BH> I obvious prefer to spend my time on improving the chess engine of Rebel
Of course this is very senseful, but opening also is chess. Remember tests
in the german Computer Schach und Spiele, where testers experiment with a
book converter. One result was, that with the well-done Genius-Tournament-
book Fritz3 defeats Genius (with tournament-book) more often (with the
converted Genius-tournament-book) than without.
Take a look at the final standings of the Welser tournament (see Computer
Schach und SPiele 2/1996). There were all the programs on Pentium100 with
16MB RAM, *using NO opening book*!
Final standings with 2h/60moves:
1.Fritz3!
2.Quest3
3.Rebel7!
4.MChessPro4!!!
5.Kalisto 1.98
6.Genius2!
7.Genius3
8.Hiarcs4
9.WChess 1.03
10.MChessPro5!!!!!
11.Rebel6
12.Hiarcs3
13.Gandalf 2.1
14.Diogenes 2.10
Interesting that MCP4 is higher placed than MCP5, isn't it? :-)
BH> rather than spending months of my time looking for weak points in other
BH> chess programs and add total won lines to the Rebel opening book!
Well neither you nor MArty Hirsch himself will do this, he has got his
"fellows" to do that. ;-)
BH> Personally I find this behavior disgusting since it hides the truth of the
BH> real playing strength of a chess program.
Yes and no. What about a human tournament, where one player beats the
other with good openings? He is clever and in my eyes he earns the wins,
because he is a clever player. I guess in championship the players of
higher leagues even do have deeper understandings and knowledge of
openings which lead them to a win against other players who do not play
that high. So why should he not use his knowledge? Supposing a worse
player finds an opening variation that lets him win against a higher-rated
player, why shouldn't he play that variation? Of course he will only win
once in that way, so I ask myself, is it not possible for computer
programs to learn as a human would? Of course there are functions like
that (I can't remember if Rebel implements this), but do they work
correctly?
BH> But I really wonder if I have any choice left!
Look above, I think you must do the same not to be in disadvantage
although it is not necessairy yet for you because the new SSDF-list
probably will place Rebel8 on top with more than 2480 points
One reason for that can be, and that excites me very often, is that Rebel
again and again finds holes in Genius-Tournament- and Grandmaster-books.
E.g I got one game where Genius3 left the tournament-book in the 7th move,
in move 21 Rebel7 announces a mate in 8! Although he also got early out of
book. Now still going but obviously lost is an actual game where Rebel8
(P90, 28MB HT) kicks Genius4 (486/133 16MB HT, Grandmasterbooks) to an
evaluation of -5.69 in move 16!! Without any opening-book-tricks. If you
want me to I can post you these 2 games..
BH> What to do?
I would say wait, because the new list will appear shortly. If the killer-
books would be that successful, Rebel would never achieve the first rank.
Wait and see, especially what the new MCP6 will do in the opening against
other strong programs and in SSDF. But prepare to do the same with your
Rebel-opening-book, sad it is...
BH> Comments are *VERY* welcome because I want to know what you all think
BH> about this subject.
OK, my opinion is written down...
BH> I mean if nobody really cares why should I care any longer?
What do you care?
BH> Just confused and worried.
Easy to understand your thinking.
Harald...... der Einzigartige, ok ok, mehr einzig als artig.... :-)
=============================================================================
Hallo Ed,
an opinion from a Friend !
Mit grinsendem Freundlich ;-)=)
Bernd InterNet: bhe...@shadow.franken.de
... Faellt der Bauer tot vom Traktor, steht in der Naehe ein Reaktor.
--
Bernd Herbst
Total agreement!!!
Unbelievable!
But clever..
Seems to be.. :-(((
Final standings with 2h/60moves:
1.Fritz3!
2.Quest3
3.Rebel7!
4.MChessPro4!!!
10.MChessPro5!!!!!
BH> What to do?
What do you care?
Hallo Ed,
A Opinion from a Friend !
Answer over me ..
Mit grinsendem Freundlich ;-)=)
Bernd InterNet: bhe...@shadow.franken.de
... Lieber hier ein logIN als anderswo knockOUT!
--
Don Getkey
In article <3267B9...@bnr.ca>, Philippe Beaudoin <phil...@bnr.ca>
writes:
>And be sure I wont buy MChess, even if I was considering it. Just an
>advice to MChess people: take 2-3 maketing lessons, your posts in this
>group haven't been very attractive to potential customers!
>
> Philippe Beaudoin
>
>
Dear Mr.Beaudoin ,
I found everything that Mr.Hirsch or his partner Mr.Necchi said, to
be fairly straight forward and without apology. They seem to have made a
rare attempt to dislodge some of the mis-information about MCP5, and they
way it was designed. I respect this effort, not revile it.
As the owner of 13 different types of chess programs, MCP5 being one
of them, I assure you I have been completely satisfied with it's playing
strength/style. It remains the most entertaining and strongest chess
program I own. My thanks to Mr.Hirsch, for he has created the standard
(in many ways) by which all others are measured.
The only thing that surprises me in all this, is why Mr.Hirsch and
his MCP5 have not been under more severe scrutiny sooner? After all, when
your the "Top Dog" or "King of the Hill", you become an temptingly easy
target.
yours in chess,
Don
Ramsey MN USA
Garby Leon
In <3267D4...@netcom.ca> Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> writes:
>
>Garby Leon wrote:
>>
>> In <546vqv$l...@juniper.cis.uab.edu> hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert
>> Hyatt) writes:
>> >
>> >Garby Leon (ga...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>> >:
>> >: Plus, if the openings skewed the results in any way (say one created
>> >: a consistent dead win for any computer that played black), it would
>> >: be obvious immediately.
>> >:
>> >: regards,
>> >:
>> >: -- garb
>>
>> >Wouldn't even be a problem, because both programs would get the black
>> >side of that opening and if the game is really busted, each would get
>> >one point, which wouldn't bias anything too much...
>>
>> Right - but it would show the position was faulty in that it didn't
>> give the programs a chance to 'fight.'
>>
>> Ideally, of course, you'd want startup positions where the stronger
>> program would have a chance to win both sides.
>
>Who would pick those equal positions that have lots of chances for
>both sides? Informator doesn't have any symbol for that. You would
>have to hire a GM specially for this.
>Komputer Korner
>The komputer that couldn't kompute the square root of
>36^n.
I didn't say "lots of chances for both sides" -- I'm assuming the
stronger program can win even if its chances are = . The danger is a
given 'random' position will give a hidden positional (or tactical)
advantage for one side, preventing a real contest.
Chris Whittington
"Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> Dear Marty,
>
Guys, guys, guys.
We know the Christmas release and sales season is upon us.
To paraphrase Clausevitz: 'war on rgcc is an extension of the
SSDF list by other means'.
The blame war you're fighting says (not my words, or thoughts), so
far:
1. Marty is a cheat because he's cooking his books.
2. SSDF is not valid because results are skewed.
I'll add:
3. Hiarcs3, Rebel6, Genius3 are to blame because they
released with opening books with too little variance
a) because they wanted to get into particular lines, because they
thought these lines were good for their program.
b) because they didn't invest sufficient resources into their book
development.
c) because it worked at the time.
Now these programs have been cooked, they complain.
Actually the above 'blame' statement is about as ridiculous as the
first two.
Nobody is doing anything wrong.
Simply what has happened is that the *interaction* between various
people doing nothing wrong has generated a minor 'systems' failure.
Its no good blaming individuals for this.
And its not exactly a catastrophic failure.
Solution:
1. Create more variance in opening books. Fritz for example
is impossible to cook, because the opening variance is so high.
2. Add an on-line learning function to each program, to avoid losses
and promote wins.
3. Play lots more games on the SSDF to average out the results. (If
Mchess keeps beating Hiarcs3, then Hiarcs3 grade will fall also, this
gives less benefit to keep beating it)
4. New proposal to Goran:
Everybody thinks SSDF grades are too *high*. Eg the top results
suggest progams play at or near GM strength, when we know they don't.
We know that a small change to a program can result in a sudden
and dramatic increase in wins against other programs. This is not
because the 'new' program is that much stronger, but for some
other difficult to understand or explain reasons.
I think that SSDF is using some variant of the 400 or 350 +
opponent grade for a win, opposite for a loss, type of grading
system.
I think this generates too *wide* a range of grades. Too low for the
very weak programs, too high for the strong ones.
I think that, for a *computer* grading list there is an argument
for reducing the win/loss adjustment. Maybe even halving it.
Chris Whittington
Ed Schröder
:Ed, even if you get the commercial programmers to all agree, no more
:cooked books, there is still the big problem of all the amateur
:programmer programs into his program a special feature to waste
:it is still in it's cooked book.AAAAAAAggggghhhhh!!!!!! Hidden
:camouflaged cooked killer books!!!! Oh Oh, I think "I" have just
:created a monster.
:The komputer that couldn't kompute the square root of 36^n.
You know my solution to "cooked books" on Computer tournaments?
I simply not go, problem is solved :)
On SSDF only commercial available programs are tested.
Amateur problem also solved.
Your monster idea...
Yes this is very easy to program, however it will become known, people
are too smart for that. Chess programmers are supposed to be smart
too and will understand that, and not do it.
All three problems solved! :)
- Ed -
Ed Schröder
From: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
:This is a problem anyway. I haven't seen any of the programs that are
:rated at >2400 ("Elo") perform at that level in real games against real
:FIDE IM's and GM's... So from this perspective, the issue is not so
:important because you'll be disappointed killer books or not. A preview
:was posted this morning with Rebel 8 at 2475 or so on the next list.
Each year we have the Aegon tournament.
1994 Rebel got a TPR of 2460 or so
1995 Rebel got a TPR of 2470 or so
1996 Rebel got a TPR of 2530 or so
These TPR's come pretty close to SSDF ratings.
Moreover a few other chess programs did even better than Rebel
both in 1995 and 1996!
Bob, this is 1996, times are changing.
:I have a lot of respect for all the commercial programs, but have not
:seen a one that I think really plays at nearly a FIDE 2500 level. They
:simply don't "know enough." They play tactically wonderful, positionally
:o.k., but long-range planning is the pits, yet that's exactly what a 2500
:player excels at, "where do I want my pieces and pawns 20 moves from
now?"
:Not "where do I want my pieces *now*?" and then two moves later ask the
:same question and get a slightly different answer. :)
I am not underestimating IM's and GM's at all but the fact is that
even GM's have a hard time at Aegon. Speaking for Rebel at Aegon 1996,
Rebel had to face 3 grandmasters and one IM.
Rebel scored 50% against the 3 grandmasters (1 win, 1 draw, 1 lost)
Rebel won from the IM.
And what about the scores of Nimzo and Quest on Aegon 1996?
I think you underestimate today's commercial chess program and maybe
your own Crafty too?
:In any case, take the SSDF as computer vs computer performance and
nothing
:more. The programs at the top will do better against humans than the
ones
:at the bottom because they are way stronger... however, whether #1 is
:better against Kasparov than #2 is anybody's guess...
If I compare the AEGON ELO results with SSDF ELO results things are quite
in balance. I do not see the problem. Also other human <> computer
tournaments or matches justify the SSDF ratings sofar.
> BTW: By avoiding the opening traps of the MChess 5 book and using a few
> cooked lines specifically against MChess itself, Rebel 8 will be very
> likely the top program on the next list by a margin of maybe 50-60 SSDF/ELO
> point (just to prove the point). At least the intermediate results posted
> here seem to suggest this. This shows that Ed could play the game very well
> if he wanted, he could even post monthly killer updates on his web page
> where he currently provides outstanding customer support.
Monthly killer updates on my home page???? **** NEVER ****
Not even if people will pay a $1000 for it!
- Ed Schroder -
Robert Hyatt
Alexander Fuchs (w3fu...@fsrz2.rz.uni-passau.de) wrote:
:
:
: Philippe Beaudoin <phil...@bnr.ca> schrieb im Beitrag
: <3267B9...@bnr.ca>...
: > Albert Silver wrote:
: > > I'd also like to point out that this strongly influenced my decision a
: > > month ago when I decided to purchase two programs and chose Genius 4.0
: > > and Rebel 8.0.
: > And be sure I wont buy MChess, even if I was considering it.
:
: Yes, that's probably the only way we can get rid of the killer books. Don't
: buy the program(s) that have these killer books. Although I like M-chess, I
: don't think I am going to buy version 6.
:
: Alexander Fuchs
I still think you are not buying the right program for the wrong reason.
(get that? not sure I did... :) )
If I were shopping for a program, I'd try to play them all, and pick the
one I liked best. You personally will never know if Mchess Pro has a
"killer book line" or not most likely, since you aren't targeted by such
a line. Just ignore all the hyperbole, and pick what you like best. If
you like MCP's interface, or style of play, or whatever, that's what would
make my mind up, not whether he's cooked somebody else's book or not, because
it wouldn't directly affect me or my enjoyment of that program at all.
Robert Hyatt
Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: From: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
:
: :This is a problem anyway. I haven't seen any of the programs that are
: :rated at >2400 ("Elo") perform at that level in real games against real
: :FIDE IM's and GM's... So from this perspective, the issue is not so
: :important because you'll be disappointed killer books or not. A preview
: :was posted this morning with Rebel 8 at 2475 or so on the next list.
:
: Each year we have the Aegon tournament.
: 1994 Rebel got a TPR of 2460 or so
: 1995 Rebel got a TPR of 2470 or so
: 1996 Rebel got a TPR of 2530 or so
: These TPR's come pretty close to SSDF ratings.
:
: Moreover a few other chess programs did even better than Rebel
: both in 1995 and 1996!
:
: Bob, this is 1996, times are changing.
Yep, but they haven't changed *that* much. Non-tournament time controls,
a "party" atmosphere, etc. Try (maybe) the World Open or some such event.
Or play a strong GM a match of 8 games at 40/2. I don't think you or
anyone will do well there, I know Crafty wouldn't, yet in the past week I
watched Crafty go 10-0 at 5 3 games against a GM, 6-1-1 against the best
GM playing on ICC (no names, you can figure it out though), 14-0 against a
very good IM at 5 10 games, etc. But these are all "for fun" with no prize
at stake. Even GM's need "motivation." And when they get motivated, they
can be something to behold.
:
: :I have a lot of respect for all the commercial programs, but have not
: :seen a one that I think really plays at nearly a FIDE 2500 level. They
: :simply don't "know enough." They play tactically wonderful, positionally
: :o.k., but long-range planning is the pits, yet that's exactly what a 2500
: :player excels at, "where do I want my pieces and pawns 20 moves from
: now?"
: :Not "where do I want my pieces *now*?" and then two moves later ask the
: :same question and get a slightly different answer. :)
:
: I am not underestimating IM's and GM's at all but the fact is that
: even GM's have a hard time at Aegon. Speaking for Rebel at Aegon 1996,
: Rebel had to face 3 grandmasters and one IM.
:
: Rebel scored 50% against the 3 grandmasters (1 win, 1 draw, 1 lost)
: Rebel won from the IM.
:
: And what about the scores of Nimzo and Quest on Aegon 1996?
:
: I think you underestimate today's commercial chess program and maybe
: your own Crafty too?
No, my assessment comes from my experience. I'm not a GM, but I have a
heck of an understanding of the game of chess from a positional perspective,
and I simply see all programs as tactically aware chess players that have so
many holes in their positional understanding that they almost look like
beginners. Let a GM get interested in your program, study it seriously,
and then play it. The results will be way different than at Aegon. It
will look more like the Kasparov Deep Blue match after round 1...
:
: :In any case, take the SSDF as computer vs computer performance and
: nothing
: :more. The programs at the top will do better against humans than the
: ones
: :at the bottom because they are way stronger... however, whether #1 is
: :better against Kasparov than #2 is anybody's guess...
:
: If I compare the AEGON ELO results with SSDF ELO results things are quite
: in balance. I do not see the problem. Also other human <> computer
: tournaments or matches justify the SSDF ratings sofar.
They justify the "order" but not the "Elo rating". Who has a real "Elo"
(=FIDE to most people) rating out there? Results over 7 games are, as we
all know, not indicative of what will happen over a "lifetime." I simply
think that when a GM prepares for Rebel, or Crafty, or anyone else, the
match will be short and ugly. This won't always be the case, because even
at present the GM has to play chess. But when he does, it's not the same
thing our programs are playing, other than the rules...
:
: > BTW: By avoiding the opening traps of the MChess 5 book and using a few
: > cooked lines specifically against MChess itself, Rebel 8 will be very
: > likely the top program on the next list by a margin of maybe 50-60 SSDF/ELO
: > point (just to prove the point). At least the intermediate results posted
: > here seem to suggest this. This shows that Ed could play the game very well
: > if he wanted, he could even post monthly killer updates on his web page
: > where he currently provides outstanding customer support.
:
: Monthly killer updates on my home page???? **** NEVER ****
: Not even if people will pay a $1000 for it!
:
: - Ed Schroder -
:
:
Robert Hyatt
Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: :Ed, even if you get the commercial programmers to all agree, no more
: :cooked books, there is still the big problem of all the amateur
: :kitchens. It will become impossible to police, especially if a
: :programmer programs into his program a special feature to waste
: :time to make it look like the program is thinking when in reality
: :it is still in it's cooked book.AAAAAAAggggghhhhh!!!!!! Hidden
: :camouflaged cooked killer books!!!! Oh Oh, I think "I" have just
: :created a monster.
: :--
: :Komputer Korner
: :The komputer that couldn't kompute the square root of 36^n.
:
:
: You know my solution to "cooked books" on Computer tournaments?
: I simply not go, problem is solved :)
:
: On SSDF only commercial available programs are tested.
: Amateur problem also solved.
I don't follow this. Tony's been helping me debug the autoplay so that
Crafty can be tested. Or did I misunderstand what's going on?
:
: Your monster idea...
: Yes this is very easy to program, however it will become known, people
: are too smart for that. Chess programmers are supposed to be smart
: too and will understand that, and not do it.
:
: All three problems solved! :)
:
: - Ed -
:
:
mclane
Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
> Moritz Berger (ber...@athene.informatik.uni-bonn.de) wrote:
> : Graham Laight wrote:
> : > Everybody in Europe always seems to want protectionist measures at the
> : first
> : > sniff of competition. I wish we could be more like the USA.
> : >
> : very interesting. You are against protectionism? You are suggesting fair
> : play? I think that book cooking is comparable with the worst kinds of
> : protectionism (i.e. it doesn't favour the best but instead influences
> : competition by means the don't really belong to the real issue, e.g.
> : monetary subsidizes, trade customs or cooked books).
> :
> : > How do you expect consumers around the world to judge programs except by
> : looking
> : > at tables?
> : >
> : > Is everybody expected to make deep studies every time they buy a USD100
> : product?
> : >
> :
> : Maybe you (the customer) would be pissed off if you bought a product in the
> : good faith that it had a very strong chess engine (rated #1 on the SSDF
> : list), only to find out that against humans its playing strength is more
> : than 100 SSDF/ELO points below its advertised strength?
>
> This is a problem anyway. I haven't seen any of the programs that are
> rated at >2400 ("Elo") perform at that level in real games against real
> FIDE IM's and GM's... So from this perspective, the issue is not so
> important because you'll be disappointed killer books or not. A preview
> was posted this morning with Rebel 8 at 2475 or so on the next list.
>
> seen a one that I think really plays at nearly a FIDE 2500 level. They
> simply don't "know enough." They play tactically wonderful, positionally
> o.k., but long-range planning is the pits, yet that's exactly what a 2500
> player excels at, "where do I want my pieces and pawns 20 moves from now?"
> Not "where do I want my pieces *now*?" and then two moves later ask the
> same question and get a slightly different answer. :)
>
> more. The programs at the top will do better against humans than the ones
> at the bottom because they are way stronger... however, whether #1 is better
> against Kasparov than #2 is anybody's guess...
Mchess did a good job at AEGON-tournament in Den Haag where it played
good against HUMANS !!
AND it was leader of the SSDF-list.
So: why do you always and always and always repeat the same
stupid sentence that Mchess is a bad program when knocking
the opening book out or that Mchess is a bad program
because it has cooked lines in the opening book.
When will people in this news-group accept that Mchess5 was
a good and strong playing chess program, with or without opening book.
We are driving into the 21st century. Please update your system date.
There is no doubt anymore that Mchess is strong.
All the ideas about bookcooking will not promote Mchess into a
weaker program.
> : These killer
> : openings are often quite bad against humans and mean an overall worse book
> : quality! MChess 5 often plays the French Defense, good against other
> : computers (computers don't play the French very well), bad against humans.
> :
> : BTW: By avoiding the opening traps of the MChess 5 book and using a few
> : cooked lines specifically against MChess itself, Rebel 8 will be very
> : likely the top program on the next list by a margin of maybe 50-60 SSDF/ELO
> : point (just to prove the point). At least the intermediate results posted
> : here seem to suggest this. This shows that Ed could play the game very well
> : if he wanted, he could even post monthly killer updates on his web page
> : where he currently provides outstanding customer support.
> :
No the author writes the same bullshit in suspicion to Rebel8.
Again here: Rebel8 should be leader because of some "cooked-lines".
When Rebel8 will be the leader of the SSDF -list and a good chess
program
than the only reason is: that ED has made progress in programming it.
The difference between version7 and version8 of Rebel can be proofed by
anybody who has an autoplayer:
Put both versions against Genius3 on the autoplayer and
let Rebel7 and later Rebel8 play with the opening-book of Rebel7.
Tell us about thze result. Proof it by autoplaying vs. Mchess5 and
Fritz3 and then tell us about the results.
If Rebel8 is NOT better, then the opening book was the reason.
Until this has not been done: stop discussing again and again the same
suspicions...
> : > My opinion is that, if you can't compete, and you stand and complain
> : noisily
> : > about it, you make yourself look weak. I personally think that it is not
> : good
> : > to present yourself to the world with the word "victim" stamped upon your
> : > forehead.
> :
> : Consider the case of Hiarcs: Hiarcs is one of the strongest programs
> : around, especially against humans. It plays a very interesting style and
> : has much positional and endgame knowledge. A real winner. IMHO mostly due
> : to Mchess book-cooking the program isn't recognized as one of the very
> : strongest (although despite of the cooked results against Mchess, it's
> : rated quite high in the SSDF list). The author doesn't get the commercial
> : rewards for his ingenious programming and the further development of Hiarcs
> : is at risk. Mark Uniacke a victim? Yes, I would certainly say so. Doping is
> : considered unethical in all kind of sports, since it hides the real
> : strength and commitment of athletes and deprives the fair players of the
> : recognition they deserve.
So opening book-cooking is doping ???
Oh - then I am doped every game because I play
the Blackmar-Diemer-Gambit and this is a WIN for white
if you play with 1.d4 !
So Emil-Josef-Diemer was a dealer, maybe he is in prison now there in
heaven!
> :
> : BUY HIARCS! You won't regret it if you're after one of the very best chess
> : engines!
> :
Of course Hiarcs is a strong program.
And it had always problems with the opening book.
It lost 1 1/2 points in PADERBORN championship because opponents
prepaired 2 games.
But a good player who buys Hiarcs, or a tester, or even
somebody replaying the games that circle arround
the magazins
can find out himself that HIarcs is strong.
(and Rebel, and Mchess).
So Mark is a victim because many many people are not able
to find out between quantity and quality and buy the wrong programs?
So Mark is a victim of merchandising-campaigns and disinformation?
A victim of opponents cheating and prepairing killer-books ?
A victim because the SSDF-guys were unable to test a world-champion
program for ONE year after the MUNICH-chamionship although they
have had the software to test for free ?!
A victim because he made a contract with Ossi Weiner after the
munich championship ?
Yes. A victim.
But you will always lose if you be nice and fair and living in a society
where lyers and cheating and manipulation is one main rule to survive.
> : I'm simply not interested in buying a program that only performs well
> : against other programs by using a cooked book. Chess programming is a very
> : intelligent task, book cooking is FOUL PLAY.
> :
I don't know such a program. Which program do you speak about?
Ossi Weiner loaded a killer-book in the game against Mchess in
Paderborn.
Do you speak about Genius??
> : About learning functions: T he SSDF usually plays 20-40 games against one
> : opponent, maybe even on different machines. Book learning could only work
> : in advance, not for such a limited ammount of games.
>
Wrong! Try yourself with the autoplayer!
> Depends. Genius usually uses a pretty narrow book that is really nicely
> tailored to its style of play. A narrow book, playing someone that learns,
> is a recipe for disaster. In this case it wouldn't be cooking, it is just
> that the "learner" learns how to bust the opponent's book by playing... If
> the opponent doesn't also learn, someone's going to lose. *big*. 40 games
> may be enough with a narrow book. 10 might be enough at times to see the
> last 4-5 settled in dramatic style, and the last 4 might be the same games
> twice with each color. :)
Confirm
>
> :
> : The non-response of the MChess team (doesn't need to be Marty Hirsch
> : himself) to the facts revealed here in this newsgroup is very interesting.
> : I fear that they are just too busy adjusting the MChess 6 book against
> : other opponents ...
>
This is very rude style of discussion. Maybe Marty is to busy
in programming Mchess6. Or he is not reading this newsgroup.
Ore is not reading any message.
You can't attack somebody because he has not read your posting!
The internet is big. Who should know YOU (despite from you mother and
your
tapeworm).
:
> : If the MChess development continues in this questionable direction, I am
> : proposing to ignore all of its games in the SSDF list and simply calculate
> : a new list based on all other games (excepting recent MChess versions).
> : This would only improve the margin of error in all ratings ...
>
Brilliant! Why not shooting Marty Hirsch instead. This would be much
nicer and fair. If you attack somebody, than try to kill him if you
see him!! Why these stupid words on the internet. Kill him live !
> it would also distort things, because there's lots of book-cooking by most
> everyone there at one time or another. Maybe the "scale" is different for
> Mchess vs Genius 4, but both have cooked lines...
>
> :
You don't have to play with the opening books.
In many chess programs (e.g. MCHESS5, Genius4) you choose between
different books, one tournament book (with cooked lines) and
a bigger more randomnly book. Why don't you use this book.
Don't tell me than: oh - I can't use this book, it would
be unfair if one program choses a weak line and loses the game!!
If you think so - you have not understand your own points.
> : Disclaimer: I like Mchess and would certainly support it if not for the
> : killer book issue. If Marty Hirsch decides to optionally disable the killer
> : variants, I will be the first to applaude and buy the new version. The
> : Mchess concept is very interesting and Mchess has been one of the first
> : really good PC programs. Marty Hirsch deserves much respect for his
> : excellent programming and I hope that he will invest the time he will save
> : in the future by not cooking his books in many new and successful chess
> : engines.
> :
> : --
Very nice disclaimer. But again: you can switch the randomn-book on and
the
tournament book off. Or even play without book. That's unbeatable fair.
Or is this again doping ??
Thorsten.
(And again: can we stop the opening book-discussions please!!)
mclane
Chris Whittington wrote:
>
> jhu...@indirect.com (James E. Hughes) wrote:
> >
> > In article <54397q$l...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <01bbbb7c$535c0920$Loca...@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>,
> > > Moritz Berger <ber...@athene.informatik.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> > > >Maybe you (the customer) would be pissed off if you bought a product in the
> > > >good faith that it had a very strong chess engine (rated #1 on the SSDF
> > > >list), only to find out that against humans its playing strength is more
> > > >openings are often quite bad against humans and mean an overall worse book
> > > >quality! MChess 5 often plays the French Defense, good against other
> > > >computers (computers don't play the French very well), bad against humans.
> > >
> > > MCHESS or with SSDF. the problem is that the human consumer is
> > > making an incorrect -assumption- that the best program in a computer
> > > competition will also be the best program in a human competition.
> > > IMHO that assumption is no more reasonable than -assuming- that
> > > the best racing bike will also be the best mountain bike. or that
> > > the best commuter car will also be a good snowmobile.
> > >
> > > perhaps SSDF could alter their methods to eliminate the killer
> > > book anomalies, or perhaps all the programs could join the "arms race".
> > > but you would still have the same fundamental problem:
> > > testing against computers is not the same as testing against humans.
> > > i don't think SSDF ever claimed to determine which is the strongest
> > > program against humans. if you really want to know that, then the
> > > SSDF way is the wrong way to do it.
> > >
> > > if you think the "killer book" approach gives an inflated
> > > estimate of strength, then prove it by beating it.
> > >
> > > SSDF may not be perfect, but it is at least objective. when you
> > > say that MCHESS (or some other program's) rating is inflated, that
> > > presumes some other objective system of measurement. define it,
> > > implement it, and popularize it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
> >
> > The fact that an individual with an obviously strong moral sense can argue
> > so passionately about Indonesia and the WMCCC yet not express any
> > reservations about the ethics of using killer books reinforces my view
> > that we all need to be more tolerant of people whose ethical judgements
> > differ from our own.
What is the problem here ?
If somebody is been "pissed off" (whatever this means when I translate
it into german) because he has bought a chess program and now he finds
out:
it is not that strong like the magazin he has read, has suggested, than
the customer must change the magazine and read another paper or
should change the shop where they told him: this is a strong
chess program.
If he just looked into the SSDF-list and bought it,
it's his fault again. Because how can you trust
an organisation that is NOT SAVING and publishing
the games, and only printing the results although
the autoplayer saves the games AUTOMATICALLY !!!
Anybody can be as flat (I don't know the english term
for OBERFLAECHLICH) as he wants.
It is not ok to use killer-books. Ok.
But show me a way to find out if a program is strong
when
a) you read the wrong magazins (e.g. Computerschach & Spiele)
b) you trust in wrong advice from your local dealer
c) you just trusting into LISTS
d) you are not willing to play or replay chess-games yourself.
Very often people want to be betrayed.
They do not believe when their children tell them that
they have taken the last milk-bottle out of the fridge,
but they believe in the words of a writer or a salesman
that LIVES from the product he sells.
What shall a salesman answer if you ask him:
Is you product strong? Shall I buy it?
So ask yourself: do the people you trust in,
profit (in money) if you would buy the(ir) product.
If this is true. Don't believe the guy.
It is very easy, but it works.
We did many test-calls after the MUNICH championship
at OSSI WEINER computershop and asked him:
Which program should we buy, Genius or Hiarcs ?
(both had won the/a title in MUNICH)
Of course he always said: Genius is stronger.
If we insisted in getting Hiarcs he said: ok,
I'll send Hiarcs to you.
But Ossi Weiner had no other chance to say so.
He earns more money when selling Genius instead of Hiarcs.
So: when somebody asked him: Do you advice me to buy Genius or Hiarcs
he heard:
Do you want to earn much moeny or less.
Of course he decided very human.
Whom do you want to blame now.
>
> Huh ?
>
> What does this mean ?
>
> Seems to make no sense at all.
>
> The issues are unconnected.
>
> The conclusion is a non-sequitur.
>
> Chris Whittington
>
> >
> > My apologies if this posts twice. My first attempt generated an error msg.
Robert Hyatt
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
My only comment here is that you need to *carefully* watch your attributions.
The above quoted text was written by me. Howver *I* did *not* have anything
negative to say about Mchess Pro at all. In fact, I challenge you to find
any negative comment about *any* program that I've posted. I don't do that.
I suspect your comment was not directed at me, but following something that
I said, the implication is strong... I have not griped about cooked openings
at all, I've cooked and been cooked many times over the years, and I've lived
with it silently. I intend to continue to be silent, and find ways to avoid
the problem rather than trying to get others to stop doing it...
:
: > : These killer
I don't see "cheating" as an issue. Cooking a book is one thing, cheating
is a whole different thing. Not to be mentioned in the same breath. Otherwise
every GM on the planet cheats because they all cook lines against known
opponents...
:
:
: > : I'm simply not interested in buying a program that only performs well
Tim Mirabile
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>Komputer Korner (kor...@netcom.ca) wrote:
>:
>: Who would pick those equal positions that have lots of chances for
>: both sides? Informator doesn't have any symbol for that. You would
>: have to hire a GM specially for this.
>This even I could do. You are primarily looking for positions between
>10 and 20 moves into a game, where material is even, the position is
>not busted for either side, and the kings are reasonably placed, not
>trapped in the center for example.
I don't know about that. I think you would want a representative sample,
to make sure the machines know how to play all different kinds of
positions. So that includes closed and open positions, sharp and quiet,
kings castled on the same side, opposite sides, not at all, etc. I guess
the goal would be to select these in roughly the same proportion as they
happen in real games.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Mirabile <t...@mail.htp.com> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ |
| TimM on FICS - telnet://fics.onenet.net:5000/ PGP Key ID: B7CE30D1 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Sylvain Landry
Philippe Beaudoin <phil...@bnr.ca> wrote:
>Albert Silver wrote:
>> I'd also like to point out that this strongly influenced my decision a
>> month ago when I decided to purchase two programs and chose Genius 4.0
>> and Rebel 8.0.
>
>And be sure I wont buy MChess, even if I was considering it. Just an
>advice to MChess people: take 2-3 maketing lessons, your posts in this
>group haven't been very attractive to potential customers!
>
> Philippe Beaudoin
At our store in Montreal, we sell more MChess 5.0 than Rebel 7.0 (8.0),
Genius4 and Fritz4 and Virtual Chess altogether !!. Mchess 5.0 is a great
product with unique options.
When you try it, you like it.
Sylvain Landry ( Chess'N Maths)
Ed Schröder
From: Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>
"Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> Dear Marty,
>
: Guys, guys, guys.
: We know the Christmas release and sales season is upon us.
Chris this is rubbish, as I said before this whole issue will hurt Marty
as much as it will hurt me. If I am worried about my sellings I should
have never answered Marty's initial posting in the first place.
Moreover knowing the good Rebel8 results on SSDF on beforehand (*) it
would have been wise for me to ignore the whole subject at all. From a
marketing point of view it was even stupid of me to have this discussion
at this moment. As a business men yourself I am sure you understand this.
(*) SSDF is always so kind to keep programmers informed about the
progress of the testing if they ask for that. Of course the information
is confidential till results are published either by SSDF or PLY.
As said before I am worried about this new development since I think it
is a bad one.
In the meantime I can say that the whole discussion has moved to private
email. Therefore I think it's only fair to say as less as possible at
the moment about the whole subject.
This puts me somewhat in a difficult position to comment items on your
posting, hope you understand my point of view that I can't comment all
your points at the moment.
:To paraphrase Clausevitz: 'war on rgcc is an extension of the
:SSDF list by other means'.
:The blame war you're fighting says (not my words, or thoughts), so
:far:
:1. Marty is a cheat because he's cooking his books.
I *NEVER* said Marty cheats Chris!
I only explained the effects of book cooking.
It's a free world and Marty may / can do what he want.
If it is wise is just another story.
Come on Chris, don't twist my words!
:2. SSDF is not valid because results are skewed.
SSDF is the best list we have.
: I'll add:
: 3. Hiarcs3, Rebel6, Genius3 are to blame because they
: released with opening books with too little variance
: a) because they wanted to get into particular lines, because they
: thought these lines were good for their program.
: b) because they didn't invest sufficient resources into their book
: development.
: c) because it worked at the time.
: Now these programs have been cooked, they complain.
: Actually the above 'blame' statement is about as ridiculous as the
: first two.
: Nobody is doing anything wrong.
: Simply what has happened is that the *interaction* between various
: people doing nothing wrong has generated a minor 'systems' failure.
: Its no good blaming individuals for this.
: And its not exactly a catastrophic failure.
: Solution:
: 1. Create more variance in opening books. Fritz for example
: is impossible to cook, because the opening variance is so high.
: 2. Add an on-line learning function to each program, to avoid losses
: and promote wins.
: 3. Play lots more games on the SSDF to average out the results. (If
: Mchess keeps beating Hiarcs3, then Hiarcs3 grade will fall also, this
: gives less benefit to keep beating it)
: 4. New proposal to Goran:
: Everybody thinks SSDF grades are too *high*. Eg the top results
: suggest progams play at or near GM strength, when we know they don't.
: We know that a small change to a program can result in a sudden
: and dramatic increase in wins against other programs. This is not
: because the 'new' program is that much stronger, but for some
: other difficult to understand or explain reasons.
I agree on the first part.
I disagree on the last part!
I remember the ChessMachine version 3.0
I added just *ONE* instruction to the program resulting in version 3.1
that became WC in Madrid 1992. The ELO difference between 3.0 and 3.1
was 50 ELO points and OF COURSE there was an OBVIOUS reason for that!
Unfortunately such miricals / wonders do not happen every year :)
- Ed Schroder -
: I think that SSDF is using some variant of the 400 or 350 +
: opponent grade for a win, opposite for a loss, type of grading
: system.
: I think this generates too *wide* a range of grades. Too low for the
: very weak programs, too high for the strong ones.
: I think that, for a *computer* grading list there is an argument
: for reducing the win/loss adjustment. Maybe even halving it.
: Chris Whittington
Chris Whittington
"Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> From: Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>
> "Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear Marty,
> >
>
> : Guys, guys, guys.
> : We know the Christmas release and sales season is upon us.
>
> Chris this is rubbish, as I said before this whole issue will hurt Marty
> as much as it will hurt me.
No. Disagree.
Christmas sales season *is* apon us and there's a lot of noise
about new products. This thread is part of the noise.
> If I am worried about my sellings I should
> have never answered Marty's initial posting in the first place.
Yup. My guess is that you answered Marty's first post on emotional
grounds because its an issue you feel very strongly over.
It is also a commercial issue of who is going to sell the most
programs. Although that wasn't your intention in posting.
But now, many people (not you though) are turning it into a
'I'm buying Rebel, and I'm not buying Mchess' and vice versa type
silly stuff.
>
> Moreover knowing the good Rebel8 results on SSDF on beforehand (*) it
> would have been wise for me to ignore the whole subject at all. From a
> marketing point of view it was even stupid of me to have this discussion
> at this moment. As a business men yourself
No, no, I'm an old hippy
No, no, I wear a power suit with red braces
No, no, I'm the leader of the anarcho-syndicalist peoples front
No, no, I .......
> I am sure you understand this.
>
> (*) SSDF is always so kind to keep programmers informed about the
> progress of the testing if they ask for that. Of course the information
> is confidential till results are published either by SSDF or PLY.
>
> As said before I am worried about this new development since I think it
> is a bad one.
>
> In the meantime I can say that the whole discussion has moved to private
> email. Therefore I think it's only fair to say as less as possible at
> the moment about the whole subject.
>
> This puts me somewhat in a difficult position to comment items on your
> posting, hope you understand my point of view that I can't comment all
> your points at the moment.
>
>
> :To paraphrase Clausevitz: 'war on rgcc is an extension of the
> :SSDF list by other means'.
>
> :The blame war you're fighting says (not my words, or thoughts), so
> :far:
>
> :1. Marty is a cheat because he's cooking his books.
>
> I *NEVER* said Marty cheats Chris!
No, you, Ed, hasn't.
It's been the implication of what other people have been saying.
1. above is a summary/paraphrase of a particular view on the thread.
Wasn't meant personally.
> I only explained the effects of book cooking.
> It's a free world and Marty may / can do what he want.
> If it is wise is just another story.
> Come on Chris, don't twist my words!
Am not. see above.
>
> :2. SSDF is not valid because results are skewed.
>
> SSDF is the best list we have.
Agreed.
And I hope they don't give in to the pressure and change their
testing methods.
It must be a list that plays tournament games at tournament
time controls and with the programmers stated strongest
feature settings.
Chris Whittington
Tim Mirabile
Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Solution:
>
>1. Create more variance in opening books. Fritz for example
>is impossible to cook, because the opening variance is so high.
Also, more variation in the non-book play wouldn't hurt either. This is
the real problem, because once the computer goes out of book it tends to
play the same way over and over, and this is where it gets cooked.
Perhaps if several moves are within a few hundreths of each other in eval,
choose randomly. This would also help prevent too many repeated games
against humans as well.
Chris Whittington
t...@mail.htp.com (Tim Mirabile) wrote:
>
> Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Solution:
> >
> >1. Create more variance in opening books. Fritz for example
> >is impossible to cook, because the opening variance is so high.
>
> Also, more variation in the non-book play wouldn't hurt either. This is
> the real problem, because once the computer goes out of book it tends to
> play the same way over and over, and this is where it gets cooked.
>
> Perhaps if several moves are within a few hundreths of each other in eval,
> choose randomly. This would also help prevent too many repeated games
> against humans as well.
Also true, although there is some in-built randomness from:
Different time control -> different move
Hash table size ....
Operator lag ....
and so on.
Which is probably (hopefully) why a stored look up table of won
games against competitor programs woudln't work.
But a little more randomness during thought-play wouldn't go amiss.
Chris Whittington
Ed Schröder
dwm <d...@in.net> wrote:
>Ed Schröder wrote:
>>
>> Dear Marty,
>>
>>
>> :8. MChess Pro 5.0 won first place (decisively) over Genius, Rebel, and
>> :Hiarcs in two out of two round-robin matches against the Finnish National
>> :chess team. Clearly, its strength does not depend on opening preparation
>> :against known opponents.
>>
>> I never said anything negative about your chess engine. In fact I think
>> it's a great chess engine with a very attractive style and that I can
>> recommand it to every chess lover!
>>
>> Just remove your cooked book lines.
>>
>> - Ed Schroder -
>>
>> :-Marty Hirsch
>>
>> BTW, I think your new SHUFFLE feature is great!
>> My compliments.
>Humm!
>Based upon what I'm reading, I'm glad to have Rebel 8 and not
>MCHESS 5. I wanted a computer game that plays as human like as possible.
>Persons I play seldom are in "book" past move 3 to 5.
>Ed, I like your answer!!!
I am not sure what you mean.
>And your convictions!! Keep it up!!
Actually no, the whole discussion is moved to private email.
- Ed Schroder -
>David
Robert Hyatt
Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
:
: : 1994 Rebel got a TPR of 2460 or so
: : 1995 Rebel got a TPR of 2470 or so
: : 1996 Rebel got a TPR of 2530 or so
: : These TPR's come pretty close to SSDF ratings.
: :
: : Moreover a few other chess programs did even better than Rebel
: : both in 1995 and 1996!
: :
: : Bob, this is 1996, times are changing.
:
: >Yep, but they haven't changed *that* much. Non-tournament time controls,
: >a "party" atmosphere, etc. Try (maybe) the World Open or some such event.
: >Or play a strong GM a match of 8 games at 40/2. I don't think you or
: >anyone will do well there, I know Crafty wouldn't, yet in the past week I
: >watched Crafty go 10-0 at 5 3 games against a GM, 6-1-1 against the best
: >GM playing on ICC (no names, you can figure it out though), 14-0 against a
: >very good IM at 5 10 games, etc. But these are all "for fun" with no prize
: >at stake. Even GM's need "motivation." And when they get motivated, they
: >can be something to behold.
:
: good for humans. Especially the extra 20 seconds is a huge advantage to
: humans since they can avoid lots of losses by time control.
:
: - No "party" atmosphere" by Aegon.
: It's a serious tournament.
: Participate yourself next year and you will see.
What I mean is no 20,000 dollar prize. Lots of press, computer chess
people talking, etc. It's quite unlike something like the World Open.
Also it's more than likely that computer results are on a "downswing" as
they begin to get taken more seriously. However, I'd still take any GM
in a serious match against any program (excepting Deep Blue, which would
be more of a challenge because of its speed.) We may all be getting
closer, but the distance apart is still significant.
:
: - Be sure GM's ARE motivated!
: It's not funny for them to be beaten by a chess program!
:
: : I think you underestimate today's commercial chess program and maybe
: : your own Crafty too?
:
: >No, my assessment comes from my experience. I'm not a GM, but I have a
: >heck of an understanding of the game of chess from a positional perspective,
: >and I simply see all programs as tactically aware chess players that have so
: >many holes in their positional understanding that they almost look like
: >beginners. Let a GM get interested in your program, study it seriously,
: >and then play it. The results will be way different than at Aegon. It
: >will look more like the Kasparov Deep Blue match after round 1...
:
: Of course I understand what you are trying to say but if we study the
: results we see that reality is different. Today's chess programs are
: doing better and better against GM's and their gained TPR's are quite
: stable and even increase.
:
: The other reality is that GM's dictate (or make) the game. If a chess
: program wins from a GM this has 2 reasons:
: a) The GM overlooked a (short) tacticle combination;
: b) The chess program defends fantastic, the GM can't believe he will not
: win his (superior) position, he starts taking risks and lose;
I agree here... although this seems to be slowly changing. I've noticed that
in games on ICC, against GM's, they play "chess". Lower-rated humans like
to play "suicide" and it often generates tactical games that blow up in the
human's face. But for a GM like Roman (you need to play him, he may be one
of the best humans to play against computers.. maybe like Bronstein?) who
plays as though he is sitting across the table from a GM, and he just plays
until the program exposes something then jumps on it. Some of these "things"
he suggests that I "cover up" with better book lines, but some have to be
fixed and they are not all easy...
:
: Especially (b) happens more and more.
: Very interesting games!
:
: Who plays better chess?
: Of course the GM, do doubt about it.
: Still the computers TPR's are increasing.
I certainly agree. I just believe the gap is significant at present,
although I agree that it has closed some every year.
:
: : :In any case, take the SSDF as computer vs computer performance and
: : nothing
: : :more. The programs at the top will do better against humans than the
: : ones
: : :at the bottom because they are way stronger... however, whether #1 is
: : :better against Kasparov than #2 is anybody's guess...
: :
: : If I compare the AEGON ELO results with SSDF ELO results things are
: quite
: : in balance. I do not see the problem. Also other human <> computer
: : tournaments or matches justify the SSDF ratings sofar.
Depends on what you mean by "order" since there is a significant error
term in the SSDF, and for a single AEGON event, there's a *huge* error
term in the TPR. If the correlate too well, a statistician would likely
throw them out as invalid, because there *must* be some distortion due to
this error... if there is none, then it would seem to be "fishy."
:
: >They justify the "order" but not the "Elo rating". Who has a real "Elo"
: >(=FIDE to most people) rating out there? Results over 7 games are, as we
: >all know, not indicative of what will happen over a "lifetime." I simply
: >think that when a GM prepares for Rebel, or Crafty, or anyone else, the
: >match will be short and ugly. This won't always be the case, because even
: >at present the GM has to play chess. But when he does, it's not the same
: >thing our programs are playing, other than the rules...
:
: I guess you are right. However looking at the progress of today's chess
: programs this may change from year to year.
:
: - Ed Schroder -
:
:
I certainly hope so, because I'm working hard to change it. :) It's just
the GM has some qualities we don't have. One *significant* one is the ability
to learn, and I'm not talking about book learning, rather, generalized,
accurate, "similarity" learning. The only way to survive without it would
be to have *no* weaknesses at all. This, I believe, is impossible.
Ed Schröder
From: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
: On SSDF only commercial available programs are tested.
>I don't follow this. Tony's been helping me debug the autoplay so that
>Crafty can be tested. Or did I misunderstand what's going on?
Hi Bob,
I have also noticed such a message that your program is / shall be
tested on SSDF but I can't remember the source anymore. Maybe you
should ask Tony?
I also was surprised to find out that SSDF had tested Rebel Decade
since this is also no commercial program just like Crafty.
Both are $0.00 and heavily downloaded.
I assume the last is the reason SSDF tested Decade and now Crafty?
- Ed -
Ed Schröder
From: m10...@abc.se (Urban Koistinen)
Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
ES: Correct, and if you remove these doubles (won, draw or lost) you will
ES: exclude that part, INCLUDING the cooks! Remember a cooked line can
only
ES: gain just *ONE* win and not *FIVE* , *SEVEN* or more.
: If the SSDF adopted a policy of removing double games, don't you
: think a program using cooks would add some randomness to its play
: once the game is easily won to avoid having the game removed?
Sure, even more tricks are possible.
As I said not counting double games is not a perfect solution.
It helps.
There seems to be no EASY and CLEAN solution to solve the problem.
- Ed -
Tony Hedlund
mclane wrote:
:
: If he just looked into the SSDF-list and bought it,
: it's his fault again. Because how can you trust
: an organisation that is NOT SAVING and publishing
: the games, and only printing the results although
: the autoplayer saves the games AUTOMATICALLY !!!
: Anybody can be as flat (I don't know the english term
: for OBERFLAECHLICH) as he wants.
at number: +46 31 992 301.
The rating list is primarily made for the members of the Swedish Chess
Computer Association (SSDF) and is a part of our magazine PLY. This
magazine is kind of a purchaser guide and contains reviews of computer
chess programs. And the list is just a PART of a review.
Tony
Mark Rawlings
"Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Dear Goran,
>Thank you very much for your reply!
>Your test (removing several matches) looks very convincing, but I think
>it is in error. Your conclusion of 32 is too low since the book cooking
>works on all programs.
>You have removed the results of just 4 opponents giving already a loss
>of 32 ELO points! I find that a lot!
>It also means a free gain of 32 ELO against these 4 older versions (they
>can not defend themselves!) on future releases if the book in question
>remains unchanged on these killer lines.
>I agree with you that the situation is difficult but I think there are
>several solutions. One of them is to simply not allow double games.
I agree. It would be one thing if only 10% or so of the games were
doubles, but *90%*, that's ridiculous! Also, congrats to Ed for the
new number 1!
Mark
Chris Whittington
Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> Chris Whittington wrote:
> > =
>
> > "Ed Schr=F6der" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Marty,
> > >
> > =
>
> > Guys, guys, guys.
> > =
>
> > We know the Christmas release and sales season is upon us.
>
> > To paraphrase Clausevitz: 'war on rgcc is an extension of the
> > SSDF list by other means'.
>
> > The blame war you're fighting says (not my words, or thoughts), so
> > far:
>
> > 1. Marty is a cheat because he's cooking his books.
>
> > 2. SSDF is not valid because results are skewed.
>
> > I'll add:
> > =
>
> > 3. Hiarcs3, Rebel6, Genius3 are to blame because they
> > released with opening books with too little variance
>
> > a) because they wanted to get into particular lines, because they
> > thought these lines were good for their program.
>
> > b) because they didn't invest sufficient resources into their book
> > development.
>
> > c) because it worked at the time.
>
> > Now these programs have been cooked, they complain.
>
> > Actually the above 'blame' statement is about as ridiculous as the
> > first two.
>
> > Nobody is doing anything wrong.
>
> > Simply what has happened is that the *interaction* between various
> > people doing nothing wrong has generated a minor 'systems' failure.
>
> > Its no good blaming individuals for this.
>
> > And its not exactly a catastrophic failure.
>
> > Solution:
> > =
>
> > 1. Create more variance in opening books. Fritz for example
> > is impossible to cook, because the opening variance is so high.
>
> > 2. Add an on-line learning function to each program, to avoid losses
> > and promote wins.
>
> > 3. Play lots more games on the SSDF to average out the results. (If
> > Mchess keeps beating Hiarcs3, then Hiarcs3 grade will fall also, this
> > gives less benefit to keep beating it)
>
> > 4. New proposal to Goran:
> > Everybody thinks SSDF grades are too *high*. Eg the top results
> > suggest progams play at or near GM strength, when we know they don't.
>
> > We know that a small change to a program can result in a sudden
> > and dramatic increase in wins against other programs. This is not
> > because the 'new' program is that much stronger, but for some
> > other difficult to understand or explain reasons.
>
> > I think that SSDF is using some variant of the 400 or 350 +
> > opponent grade for a win, opposite for a loss, type of grading
> > system.
>
> > I think this generates too *wide* a range of grades. Too low for the
> > very weak programs, too high for the strong ones.
>
> > I think that, for a *computer* grading list there is an argument
> > for reducing the win/loss adjustment. Maybe even halving it.
>
> > Chris Whittington
>
> If a program doesn't have a learning feature, it is NOT impossible to
> cook against it's book even if it is as wide as Fritz's.
Ok, I used the word 'impossible' to describe cooking the Fritz book.
Agreed, it's not impossible, but much more difficult and time-comsuming.
Its a bit like code-breaking. All codes can be broken, but if a code
can't be broken in a reasonable amount of time, then ......., well,
not impossible, but you know what I mean.
Chris Whittington
> -- =
Komputer Korner
Chris Whittington wrote:
> =
> Guys, guys, guys.
> =
> I'll add:
> =
> Solution:
> =
> Chris Whittington
Garby Leon
In <3269C8...@netcom.ca> Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> writes:
>
>Garby Leon wrote:
>>snipped
>
>My previous
>comment was only about your comment of finding = positions that had
>winning chances. Since Informator does not have a symbol for lots of
>winning chances, we are not sure what % of the = symbols represent
>positions where both sides can play for a win. My guess is that it is
>a smooth normal curve where most of the positions are drawish, but
>a significant no. are won for one or the other side. So in fact the
>following is statistically correct for testing: Pick out
>lots of random positions whether they be = or not and force each
program
>to play 2 sets of games, one from the white side and one
>from the black side as has been suggested many times. If you take only
>equal positions then your sample can be smaller for the same
confidence
>interval. If you meant this, then I agree with you, but if you meant
>take only the positions where there are lots of winning chances, then
my
>previous posting is valid.
>--
>Komputer Korner
>The komputer that couldn't kompute the square root of
>36^n.
Mr. Korner --
You not only snipped my remark, you continue to misquote what I said.
"lots of equal chances" are YOUR words, not mine.
My only note on this issue was about positions which would have a
'bust' for one side or the other.
Which, as has been remarked here by another writer, would make strong
programs look weaker, and weak programs look stronger.
Ed Schröder
From: mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de>
: We did many test-calls after the MUNICH championship
: at OSSI WEINER computershop and asked him:
: Which program should we buy, Genius or Hiarcs ?
: (both had won the/a title in MUNICH)
: Of course he always said: Genius is stronger.
: If we insisted in getting Hiarcs he said: ok,
: I'll send Hiarcs to you.
: But Ossi Weiner had no other chance to say so.
: He earns more money when selling Genius instead of Hiarcs.
I think you can not say the last part because you do not know that.
- Ed -
Robert Hyatt
Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: From: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
:
I just "talked" (email) with Tony and he's planning on running Crafty thru
the cycle. We have a couple of issues to resolve. (1) is that I am not
quite sure autoplay is working correctly, but we'll get that corrected if
it doesn't since Jakarta is out of the way; (2) the book is a bigger issue,
because "small" book will lead to bad positions frequently because it's just
info from MCO10 and the like, and even worse, it doesn't have win/loss
results which will break the current code. Tony has "large" but getting this
to other testers is a problem since it is big. I'll work on this and maybe
try to extract a set of games that fits crafty's style, leaving the odd
openings out...
More once we get the wrinkles ironed out... BTW, while I don't count
downloads very "well", there was over 50,000 at last count, although I
don't have a way to find out how many were the same person getting new
versions to replace an old one. I'll try to check to see what 10.18
looks like, but I suspect quite a few...
Chris Whittington
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>
> Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
> : Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
> :
> : : Each year we have the Aegon tournament.
> : : 1994 Rebel got a TPR of 2460 or so
> : : 1995 Rebel got a TPR of 2470 or so
> : : 1996 Rebel got a TPR of 2530 or so
> : : These TPR's come pretty close to SSDF ratings.
> : :
But for every TPR that proves the point, there's another TPR
that disproves it.
There are several programs at AEGON which don't acheive anything
like their SSDF grade.
Amusingly, these seem to be 'older' versions of programs, or
once-thought-good programs which have been superceded on the list.
The program at the top of the SSDF, or the world champ, or the
current heavily PR-ed program always seems to do better against
GM's.
Or, transposing, GM's seem to fear, and play worse against, the
allegedly 'top' program, but scrunch up the same programs they
were frightened of the year before.
Do you (Ed) have the lists of TPR perfomance year on year at
AEGON. If you (or someone) has, and posted them, we could see better.
Chris Whittington
MCHESS PRO
Alexander Fuchs wrote:
>Yes, that's probably the only way we can get rid of the killer books.
Don't
>buy the program(s) that have these killer books. Although I like M-chess,
I
>don't think I am going to buy version 6.
I really do not see any justification for a reaction of this sort.
Before each MChess version is released I have made great efforts to make
the program and the opening book as strong as possible. With MChess Pro
5.0 this was quite successful and produced outstanding results in a
variety of situations against both human and computer opponents. MChess
beat three grandmasters in AEGON, outscored Rebel, Genius and Hiarcs in
two separate matches against the Finish National Chess Team, and won the
1995 Microcomputer World Championship in Paderborn in a field of amateur
and NEW commercial opponents.
In Paderborn M-Chess Pro 5.0 won a playoff against Chess Genius despite
playing into a specific MChess killer line they had prepared.
Now Ed Shroeder has stepped up to attack MChess with a barrage of innuendo
and emotionally charged buzzwords.
MChess is excellent in tactics, has A LOT of positional understanding,
plays beautiful endgames AND has a powerful opening book. It boggles my
mind that this last-mentioned benefit has become an inducement NOT to buy
the product.
-Marty Hirsch "doing my best for chess"
Ed Schröder
Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: Each year we have the Aegon tournament.
: 1994 Rebel got a TPR of 2460 or so
: 1995 Rebel got a TPR of 2470 or so
: 1996 Rebel got a TPR of 2530 or so
: These TPR's come pretty close to SSDF ratings.
:
: Moreover a few other chess programs did even better than Rebel
: both in 1995 and 1996!
:
: Bob, this is 1996, times are changing.
>Yep, but they haven't changed *that* much. Non-tournament time controls,
>a "party" atmosphere, etc. Try (maybe) the World Open or some such event.
>Or play a strong GM a match of 8 games at 40/2. I don't think you or
>anyone will do well there, I know Crafty wouldn't, yet in the past week I
>watched Crafty go 10-0 at 5 3 games against a GM, 6-1-1 against the best
>GM playing on ICC (no names, you can figure it out though), 14-0 against a
>very good IM at 5 10 games, etc. But these are all "for fun" with no prize
>at stake. Even GM's need "motivation." And when they get motivated, they
>can be something to behold.
- Aegon time controls: 1:30 for the game + 0:20 for every move is very
good for humans. Especially the extra 20 seconds is a huge advantage to
humans since they can avoid lots of losses by time control.
- No "party" atmosphere" by Aegon.
It's a serious tournament.
Participate yourself next year and you will see.
- Be sure GM's ARE motivated!
It's not funny for them to be beaten by a chess program!
: I think you underestimate today's commercial chess program and maybe
: your own Crafty too?
>No, my assessment comes from my experience. I'm not a GM, but I have a
>heck of an understanding of the game of chess from a positional perspective,
>and I simply see all programs as tactically aware chess players that have so
>many holes in their positional understanding that they almost look like
>beginners. Let a GM get interested in your program, study it seriously,
>and then play it. The results will be way different than at Aegon. It
>will look more like the Kasparov Deep Blue match after round 1...
Of course I understand what you are trying to say but if we study the
results we see that reality is different. Today's chess programs are
doing better and better against GM's and their gained TPR's are quite
stable and even increase.
The other reality is that GM's dictate (or make) the game. If a chess
program wins from a GM this has 2 reasons:
a) The GM overlooked a (short) tacticle combination;
b) The chess program defends fantastic, the GM can't believe he will not
win his (superior) position, he starts taking risks and lose;
Especially (b) happens more and more.
Very interesting games!
Who plays better chess?
Of course the GM, do doubt about it.
Still the computers TPR's are increasing.
: :In any case, take the SSDF as computer vs computer performance and
: nothing
: :more. The programs at the top will do better against humans than the
: ones
: :at the bottom because they are way stronger... however, whether #1 is
: :better against Kasparov than #2 is anybody's guess...
:
: If I compare the AEGON ELO results with SSDF ELO results things are
quite
: in balance. I do not see the problem. Also other human <> computer
: tournaments or matches justify the SSDF ratings sofar.
>They justify the "order" but not the "Elo rating". Who has a real "Elo"
>(=FIDE to most people) rating out there? Results over 7 games are, as we
>all know, not indicative of what will happen over a "lifetime." I simply
>think that when a GM prepares for Rebel, or Crafty, or anyone else, the
>match will be short and ugly. This won't always be the case, because even
>at present the GM has to play chess. But when he does, it's not the same
>thing our programs are playing, other than the rules...
I guess you are right. However looking at the progress of today's chess
Ed Schröder
From: mche...@aol.com (MCHESS PRO)
:Before each MChess version is released I have made great efforts to make
:the program and the opening book as strong as possible. With MChess Pro
:5.0 this was quite successful and produced outstanding results in a
:variety of situations against both human and computer opponents. MChess
:beat three grandmasters in AEGON, outscored Rebel, Genius and Hiarcs in
:two separate matches against the Finish National Chess Team, and won the
:1995 Microcomputer World Championship in Paderborn in a field of amateur
:and NEW commercial opponents.
:In Paderborn M-Chess Pro 5.0 won a playoff against Chess Genius despite
:playing into a specific MChess killer line they had prepared.
:Now Ed Shroeder has stepped up to attack MChess with a barrage of
innuendo
:and emotionally charged buzzwords.
Just one minor point:
To my best knowlegde it was a well thought range of strong arguments on
which I did not got an answer from your side.
- Ed Schroder -
Don Getkey
In article <54aou7$6...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>, hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu
(Robert Hyatt) writes:
>Yep, but they haven't changed *that* much. Non-tournament time controls,
>a "party" atmosphere, etc. Try (maybe) the World Open or some such
event.
>Or play a strong GM a match of 8 games at 40/2. I don't think you or
>anyone will do well there, I know Crafty wouldn't, yet in the past week I
>watched Crafty go 10-0 at 5 3 games against a GM, 6-1-1 against the best
>GM playing on ICC (no names, you can figure it out though), 14-0 against
a
>very good IM at 5 10 games, etc. But these are all "for fun" with no
prize
>at stake. Even GM's need "motivation." And when they get motivated,
they
>can be something to behold.
Again the ratings/strength dispute arises. Seems to me that this is
a perfect "in" for "stand alone chess computers"! If it is too hard to
organize a situation in which the highly inconsistent platforms of PC
based chess programs can gain actual rating points in human tournaments or
match play, then what about self contained stand alones that will always
run on the same unalterable CPU as they were built from the factory to do?
Any owner of say, an "R30", could enter it into a real tournament
without the fear of inconsistancy. The results could be officially added
to other results from across the country! In a very short period of time,
you could have tallied over a 1000 games played against a wide variety of
human opponents, for a very acurate, and "official" USCF tournament
rating! How much money might this mean to a programmer? To have the only
program with an official rating recognized by the USCF (or FIDE, or PCA
for that matter) would be quite a selling point!!!
yours in chess,
Don
Ramsey MN USA
moritz
> - Aegon time controls: 1:30 for the game + 0:20 for every move is very
> good for humans. Especially the extra 20 seconds is a huge advantage to
> humans since they can avoid lots of losses by time control.
Ed, I want to use a per move time increment (i.e. a "Fischer" clock) in
Rebel 8. Since you play at the Aegon, how do you handle time increments? Do
you just set your program at 1:30 and use the time increment for your
operator time or do you adjust the time e.g. after 40 moves? The problem in
Rebel 8 with adjusting the time is that it will lose its permanent brain
information when the user clicks on the menu.
--
---------
Moritz Berger
ber...@zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de
moritz
Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> Ok, I used the word 'impossible' to describe cooking the Fritz book.
>
> Agreed, it's not impossible, but much more difficult and time-comsuming.
>
> Its a bit like code-breaking. All codes can be broken, but if a code
> can't be broken in a reasonable amount of time, then ......., well,
> not impossible, but you know what I mean.
The reasons why I like to use Fritz 4.01 as a primary opponent when testing
new programs:
1. Fritz 4 is not Autoplayer compatible. There is no easy way to "cook" it
by letting it autoplay e.g. 100 games and then "fix" its wins against your
own program.
2. Fritz 4 doesn't have a very high rating on the SSDF (I believe the
"true" rating is more likely to be about 2400 SSDF/ELO on a P90 with enough
RAM for hash tables etc.), nobody bothers much to "cook" it since you won't
get as many rating points by cooking Fritz than you do by killing Mchess,
Hiarcs, Rebel, Genius etc.
3. Since the SSDF doesn't play many games with Fritz 4, nobody cares to
cook it.
4. I could also use the Hiarcs 4 engine with the relatively "uncooked"
Fritz 4 book (although this book is not finetuned for Hiarcs, but then it's
not a "computer" but a more human book that ends mostly in "fair" positions
with winning chances for both sides).
So Fritz 4 might be a very good opponent for killer books (although there
are indeed some "generic" killer lines e.g. in the MChess book that steer
towards positions where most computer opponents will not understand king
safety issues or poised pawns well enough. Those lines of course also work
with Fritz 4).
To summarize it: Maybe there is already a relatively strong computer
program that nobody has bothered to "cook".
Another good thing is to use Rebel 8 with the Fritz 4 book or e.g. the
Genius tournament book which Rebel can import. This will produce a program
that leaves the book at the same move like e.g. Genius, but plays different
moves afterwards, thus leaving the cooked book and maybe even refuting it!
The cheapest option if you have Rebel 8 is to merge the unedited books that
can be found on Ed's homepage and let both programs play with these books
by first enabling the Books in Rebel, play a game, then reverse colours and
go back to the move where the last program left the book and play another
game to make up for any kind of book advantage that might have emerged due
to the fact that these books are not optimized but taken from GM games.
Another advantage of this approach (i.e. using GM games, similar to what
Bob does with Crafty) is that you play "human" lines and might be closer in
evalutating playing strength against humans than with a "computer" book.
moritz
I will try to respond to the personal attacks from Thorsten only as far as
debatable matters of computer chess are concerned.
Why did I respond to the "Killer book topic at all"? In my opinion, killer
books are a problem if you want to test the relative strength of chess
engines against each other like on the SSDF list. This can only be fixed if
the topic is brought to public attention. If customers don't want killer
books and are alerted to the drawbacks, chess programmers will be able to
agree not to use killer books anymore. This is something which I would like
to see.
My point is:
If their customers don't know about the pros and cons of killer books,
programmers are very much tempted (or even forced, since the customers
"value" the results of killer lines (i.e. partially inflated SSDF ratings)
without knowing it) to use killer lines because nobody (or only a qualified
minority) will honour that they avoid to kill other programs this way.
If, on the other hand, potential buyers know about killer books and this
might even be a knock-out criterion for them to buy or not to buy a
program, it will suddenly be more attractive for a programmer to resist the
temptation and write "clean" tournament books (or offer an option in the
program to enable/disable "computer" lines).
I understood Ed Schröder's initial post not as an attempt to insult Marty
or Sandro. I thought that he was trying to make customers aware of the
subject and thus _making it possible_ for him not to have to include killer
lines. He might otherwise be forced to go "cooking" himself, since the
future of his business depends on the success of his program and this
success might be diminished if he played a different game than everybody
else.
mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote
<snip>
> Mchess did a good job at AEGON-tournament in Den Haag where it played
> good against HUMANS !!
> AND it was leader of the SSDF-list.
>
> So: why do you always and always and always repeat the same
> stupid sentence that Mchess is a bad program when knocking
> the opening book out or that Mchess is a bad program
> because it has cooked lines in the opening book.
> When will people in this news-group accept that Mchess5 was
> a good and strong playing chess program, with or without opening book.
> We are driving into the 21st century. Please update your system date.
> There is no doubt anymore that Mchess is strong.
> All the ideas about bookcooking will not promote Mchess into a
> weaker program.
See my "disclaimer" at the end of my post. MChess is a strong program.
My assumptions about a "not as good as SSDF rating would suggest" program
that uses cooked books were based on the potenial short-time success I
think you can have with book cooking (i.e. gaining up to 100 points on the
SSDF list). I was not talking about the actual games that MChess achieved
this way (I believe however that it wasn't as good as the top-rating
suggested). However, this whole discussion started because MChess (and of
all commercial programs I know, only MChess!) has a significant variety of
killer lines in its tournament book, some of which are directly targeted at
specific opponents (e.g. Hiarcs 3 or Genius 3).
> > : These killer
> > : openings are often quite bad against humans and mean an overall worse
book
> > : quality! MChess 5 often plays the French Defense, good against other
> > : computers (computers don't play the French very well), bad against
humans.
> > :
> > : BTW: By avoiding the opening traps of the MChess 5 book and using a
few
> > : cooked lines specifically against MChess itself, Rebel 8 will be very
> > : likely the top program on the next list by a margin of maybe 50-60
SSDF/ELO
> > : point (just to prove the point). At least the intermediate results
posted
> > : here seem to suggest this. This shows that Ed could play the game
very well
> > : if he wanted, he could even post monthly killer updates on his web
page
> > : where he currently provides outstanding customer support.
> > :
>
> No the author writes the same bullshit in suspicion to Rebel8.
> Again here: Rebel8 should be leader because of some "cooked-lines".
You didn't say anything about the fact that MChess' preference of certain
lines of the French Defense make it a worse opponent against humans.
I should indeed have made it clear that Rebel 8 has in my opinion the
strongest chess engine and deserves to be the leader of the pack. However,
the current rating is based partially on 19-1 (or something ...) results
against MChess, captitalizing on double games and MChess' narrow book
(again, in this case the "special" book treatment is no advantage for
MChess, since Rebel 8 has been prepared to not run into MChess traps). In
fact, Ed has added 2-3 killer lines (if you believe him, like I do!)
against MChess in his book _to prove the point_. My conclusion: MChess is
better than the result 19-1 in favour of Rebel 8 would suggest. Thus Rebel
might be slightly weaker than you would suppose if you hear those results.
Please note: I'm actually making a point in favour of MChess 5 in this
case!
> When Rebel8 will be the leader of the SSDF -list and a good chess
> program
> than the only reason is: that ED has made progress in programming it.
> The difference between version7 and version8 of Rebel can be proofed by
> anybody who has an autoplayer:
> Put both versions against Genius3 on the autoplayer and
> let Rebel7 and later Rebel8 play with the opening-book of Rebel7.
>
> Tell us about thze result. Proof it by autoplaying vs. Mchess5 and
> Fritz3 and then tell us about the results.
>
> If Rebel8 is NOT better, then the opening book was the reason.
> Until this has not been done: stop discussing again and again the same
> suspicions...
Your proposal would indeed show how much the opening book contributes to
the overall improvement of the new version. Apart from personal insults you
are finally able also to suggest very reasonable ways to test programs. As
I would have expected from you in the first place.
Please send me some games via email to clarify your point ... Maybe I can
improve my opening library this way ;-)
> So Emil-Josef-Diemer was a dealer, maybe he is in prison now there in
> heaven!
> > :
> > : BUY HIARCS! You won't regret it if you're after one of the very best
chess
> > : engines!
> > :
>
> Of course Hiarcs is a strong program.
> And it had always problems with the opening book.
> It lost 1 1/2 points in PADERBORN championship because opponents
> prepaired 2 games.
> But a good player who buys Hiarcs, or a tester, or even
> somebody replaying the games that circle arround
> the magazins
> can find out himself that HIarcs is strong.
> (and Rebel, and Mchess).
>
> So Mark is a victim because many many people are not able
> to find out between quantity and quality and buy the wrong programs?
In my experience from games played against MChess 5, Hiarcs is THE program
that sufferst most from winning book lines of MChess. MChess 5 on a 386/20
would still beat Hiarcs 3 on a PP200 by a huge margin. Hiarcs 3 is an easy
prey for book-cooks because it has a narrow book itself that can be easily
completely cooked with comparatively few variants. This is also a weakness
for Hiarcs when playing against humans, but usually not against other
programs of equal engine-strength.
Nobody buys "wrong" programs. Some people here even buy all and don't
regret it ;-)
> So Mark is a victim of merchandising-campaigns and disinformation?
> A victim of opponents cheating and prepairing killer-books ?
>
> A victim because the SSDF-guys were unable to test a world-champion
> program for ONE year after the MUNICH-chamionship although they
> have had the software to test for free ?!
>
> A victim because he made a contract with Ossi Weiner after the
> munich championship ?
>
> Yes. A victim.
>
> But you will always lose if you be nice and fair and living in a society
> where lyers and cheating and manipulation is one main rule to survive.
>
>
> > : I'm simply not interested in buying a program that only performs well
> > : against other programs by using a cooked book. Chess programming is a
very
> > : intelligent task, book cooking is FOUL PLAY.
You are always in favour of intelligent programs. You don't want CST to be
cooked out 20-0 in a match against an opponent who has also cooked your
improved lines that you got from your learning feature? It's just very hard
for me to imagine that this would be the case ... Of course, CST can't be
cooked against right now because it's still work in progress and not yet
commercially available (a pity IMHO, I'm looking forward to be able to buy
it) ...
> I don't know such a program. Which program do you speak about?
> Ossi Weiner loaded a killer-book in the game against Mchess in
> Paderborn.
> Do you speak about Genius??
Genius 3 does very well in the SSDF list if you consider that it is _the_
favourite target for book cooking (at least you can gain more by beating
Genius than by beating any other program and its book is not very big
compared to other programs).
Again, I was not talking about MChess but about book cooking in general. To
make this absolutely clear, I added a disclaimer at the end of my post.
Obviously this was not enough to prevent you from flaming me.
> > : About learning functions: T he SSDF usually plays 20-40 games
against one
> > : opponent, maybe even on different machines. Book learning could only
work
> > : in advance, not for such a limited ammount of games.
> >
> Wrong! Try yourself with the autoplayer!
If they are playing 20 games on 10 different machines (of course they
don't, I just want to show my point), learning cannot work. 1+1=2! (Why
don't you insult me for this equation? ;-)) Who prevents the "cooks" to
take also into account the learning function? It's so easy to do with an
autoplayer, learning funtions at best (if they work) simulate a wider
opening book of your opponent. Play a few hundred games and you will be
able to tune your book against every program.
<snip>
> > :
> > : The non-response of the MChess team (doesn't need to be Marty Hirsch
> > : himself) to the facts revealed here in this newsgroup is very
interesting.
> > : I fear that they are just too busy adjusting the MChess 6 book
against
> > : other opponents ...
> >
> This is very rude style of discussion. Maybe Marty is to busy
> in programming Mchess6. Or he is not reading this newsgroup.
> Ore is not reading any message.
(see posts by Marty Hirsch and his team to refute your argument). I was
angry at that moment that they didn't respond to the presented facts (I'm
referring to the games, scores and results posted here by Ed Schröder and
the many follow-up messages) that demanded an answer. Of course, anger
doesn't improve ones attitudes in a controversial discussion. They posted
an answer here (after my post), so I will gladly take back my above
statements.
> You can't attack somebody because he has not read your posting!
> The internet is big. Who should know YOU (despite from you mother and
> your
> tapeworm).
I was not preempting a non-response to my post when I wrote it. If you lend
me your time machine I might be able to be do this in the future (but then,
if you have a time machine, why bother about computer chess anymore ...
;-)) At the time when I wrote my article, Marty Hirsch had not responded to
the whole topic at all besides initial statements that the SSDF rating
would not be influenced significantly by any kind of book cooking. He has
now done this and I'm happy have heard his response concerning the "killer
book" topic.
THE BIG ADVANTAGE OF THIS NEWSGROUP is that your above question ("Who
should know YOU") doesn't matter at all and everybody's arguments will be
answered by many who have to contribute something or disagree on a
particular point of view. I hope you will agree that we shouldn't give up
this great sense of community that we have here thanks to many postings by
Bob Hyatt, Komputer Korner, Garby Leon et al. (I'm not trying to name you
all, don't be angry because I forgot you on this list ;-)). Don't sacrifice
this for a cheap flame like the above.
> :
> > : If the MChess development continues in this questionable direction, I
am
> > : proposing to ignore all of its games in the SSDF list and simply
calculate
> > : a new list based on all other games (excepting recent MChess
versions).
> > : This would only improve the margin of error in all ratings ...
> >
>
> Brilliant! Why not shooting Marty Hirsch instead. This would be much
> nicer and fair. If you attack somebody, than try to kill him if you
> see him!! Why these stupid words on the internet. Kill him live !
Goran Grottling has posted a revised list in which he omitted MChess 5
games against 4 of its "favourite" opponents. MChess "lost" 32 SSDF/ELO
points by not couting these "out of book" results. This means: Against
other opponents (which are not direct targets of the book ...), MChess
performs somewhat worse than against those it "knows from the book". Please
note: I'm not saying that MChess would have lost all games if it hadn't won
them book-wise. On the contrary. Nobody knows how it would have performed.
It (i.e. the very good chess engine) was prevented to compete with the
other programs by it's own means. You might even say that the book took
away a victory from the excellent MChess engine by never letting it build
up its own advantages. Killer book results are completely arbitrary (to use
one of the favourite words in this newsgroup ;-))
> > it would also distort things, because there's lots of book-cooking by
most
> > everyone there at one time or another. Maybe the "scale" is different
for
> > Mchess vs Genius 4, but both have cooked lines...
> >
> > :
> You don't have to play with the opening books.
No, I don't have to do this. But the SSDF currently does.
> In many chess programs (e.g. MCHESS5, Genius4) you choose between
> different books, one tournament book (with cooked lines) and
> a bigger more randomnly book. Why don't you use this book.
> Don't tell me than: oh - I can't use this book, it would
> be unfair if one program choses a weak line and loses the game!!
>
> If you think so - you have not understand your own points.
>
> > : Disclaimer: I like Mchess and would certainly support it if not for
the
> > : killer book issue. If Marty Hirsch decides to optionally disable the
killer
> > : variants, I will be the first to applaude and buy the new version.
The
> > : Mchess concept is very interesting and Mchess has been one of the
first
> > : really good PC programs. Marty Hirsch deserves much respect for his
> > : excellent programming and I hope that he will invest the time he will
save
> > : in the future by not cooking his books in many new and successful
chess
> > : engines.
> > :
> > : --
> Very nice disclaimer. But again: you can switch the randomn-book on and
> the
> tournament book off. Or even play without book. That's unbeatable fair.
> Or is this again doping ??
I agree with you here that this (i.e. playing with non-"optimized" books)
might be a very good thing indeed. This is what this thread is all about.
However, the SSDF currently only plays with the tournament books (to
measure the maximum performance of a program). And we're talking about the
effect of killer books on SSDF ratings (at least I was ....).
>
> Thorsten.
>
> (And again: can we stop the opening book-discussions please!!)
I'm sure you'll forgive me that I answered to your post. The discussion
will be carried out between the programmers themselves, I think this is
indeed the best thing and I'm sure that Marty and Ed will come up with a
good solution that will make most people (including me) happy as far as
this subject (killer books) is concerned.
If acceptable for you I suggest that you continue to insult me via email
(if you like ;-)) or that we just forget this example of "wild attacks and
speculative play" (which you so much love to see in chess programs like
CST).
dwm
Ed Schröder wrote:
>
> dwm <d...@in.net> wrote:
>
> >Humm!
> >Based upon what I'm reading, I'm glad to have Rebel 8 and not
> >MCHESS 5. I wanted a computer game that plays as human like as possible.
>
> >Persons I play seldom are in "book" past move 3 to 5.
> >Ed, I like your answer!!!
>
> I am not sure what you mean.
Just that most of my friends who play are not "booked" players.
Example:
My friend white
1. e4 c5
2. Bc4
He does not know book moves and therefore did not play them.
Therefore I'm not really interested in a program with lots of
book moves as it does not help me improve my chess against players like
my friend.
David
Komputer Korner
Ed Schröder
From: Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>
> Christmas sales season *is* apon us and there's a lot of noise
> about new products. This thread is part of the noise.
It's funny that you (as the other commercial programmer here) mention
this. As far as I know I am:
a) a chess player
b) a regular RGCC visitor
c) a producer of a chess program
It's sometimes impossible to separate them.
: If I am worried about my sellings I should
: have never answered Marty's initial posting in the first place.
> Yup. My guess is that you answered Marty's first post on emotional
> grounds because its an issue you feel very strongly over.
SSDF is important for my (too) big ego, I agree :)
: As a business men yourself I am sure you understand this.
> No, no, I'm an old hippy
> No, no, I wear a power suit with red braces
> No, no, I'm the leader of the anarcho-syndicalist peoples front
> No, no, I .......
I am sure you can do better than that, keep on trying... :)
- Ed -
mclane
dwm wrote:
>
> Ed Schröder wrote:
> >
> > Dear Marty,
> >
> >
> > :8. MChess Pro 5.0 won first place (decisively) over Genius, Rebel, and
> > :Hiarcs in two out of two round-robin matches against the Finnish National
> > :chess team. Clearly, its strength does not depend on opening preparation
> > :against known opponents.
> >
> > I never said anything negative about your chess engine. In fact I think
> > it's a great chess engine with a very attractive style and that I can
> > recommand it to every chess lover!
> >
> > Just remove your cooked book lines.
> >
> > - Ed Schroder -
> >
> > :-Marty Hirsch
> >
> > BTW, I think your new SHUFFLE feature is great!
> > My compliments.
> Based upon what I'm reading, I'm glad to have Rebel 8 and not
> MCHESS 5. I wanted a computer game that plays as human like as possible.
> Persons I play seldom are in "book" past move 3 to 5.
> Ed, I like your answer!!!
Eh ?
You like programmers attacking themselves,
talking about stuff like unimportant opening books?
Well -
we should maybe do a wrestling competition after the
championships!!
That's nice, I see Ed Schoeder kick into Marty's face,
I see Vincent and Chris rolling over the floor,
each other bite into others ear,
I see Mark Uniacke jump on the chess-table, throwing
his screen into Frans Morschs neck because fritz killed
hiarcs, I see jeroen noomen and sandro necci.
Sandro has an UZZI and Jeroen another machine-gun,
And I see you, with bright eyes, shouting
KILL-THEM !!! Kick-him , Ed.
And I have the feeling that something is not ok here.
is this utopia?
opening-books
mclane
> >
>
> Guys, guys, guys.
>
> We know the Christmas release and sales season is upon us.
>
> SSDF list by other means'.
>
> far:
>
>
>
>
> 3. Hiarcs3, Rebel6, Genius3 are to blame because they
> released with opening books with too little variance
>
> thought these lines were good for their program.
>
> development.
>
>
>
> first two.
>
>
> people doing nothing wrong has generated a minor 'systems' failure.
>
>
>
>
> 1. Create more variance in opening books. Fritz for example
> is impossible to cook, because the opening variance is so high.
>
> and promote wins.
>
> Mchess keeps beating Hiarcs3, then Hiarcs3 grade will fall also, this
> gives less benefit to keep beating it)
>
> Everybody thinks SSDF grades are too *high*. Eg the top results
> suggest progams play at or near GM strength, when we know they don't.
>
> and dramatic increase in wins against other programs. This is not
> because the 'new' program is that much stronger, but for some
> other difficult to understand or explain reasons.
>
> opponent grade for a win, opposite for a loss, type of grading
> system.
>
> very weak programs, too high for the strong ones.
>
> for reducing the win/loss adjustment. Maybe even halving it.
>
Yes - it's christmas time again.
Because I am no christ, I don't want to kill anybody.
So please you christs:
stop the shit discussion about killer-books.
The whole time in computerchess there were strange lines
in machines that were cooked out maybe.
It was never a problem to find out how strong these machines were,
because you don't have to use the killer book.
Since we have the swedish-list, the problems occured.
But the problems have nothing to do with ethics.
You can discuss if killer book are mean or fair.
Thats 1 point.
But the problem IS and WAS that the swedish guys do NOT
document their results.
The want to do a scientific effort by testing programs.
They speak about error-margins and and and.
But they do not SAVE THEIR RESULTS ????
They do not save the games although any chess program has
a SAVE GAME option ????
They have played out all the games between the dedicated machines
by hand, and have not saved the notations???
Unbelievable. There is only one thing that could be much
more crazy, that is :
if programmers don't save their source-codes frequently enough.
So: ever and ever the swedish-guys suggests that they are
Scientific or like a mathematic formula.
But they only show us the QUANTITY without documentating them
accurately.
So: if somebody announces he has played out 567 games
fritz4 versus mchess5 and the result is xyz, with an
error margin of abc, and has not the notations, he
can forget all his tables and efforts.
And we discuss if the programmers are to blame for opening-books.
I don't want to FORCE any programmer not to use killer-books.
WHY should we force anybody?
If you have a concurrent program, write a learning-function
and the whole problem is solved in an intelligent way.
But do not judge about the programmers.
Do not imply that mchess should not be bought
because it uses a "killer-book".
This is just disgusting!
The Mchess-engine CAN PLAY VERY GOOD CHESS.
Everybody who says different is not saying the truth.
M-chess would be a strong program without opening book.
The same is true for Rebel. Of course with Hiarcs.
These killer-book rumors are often LAUNCHED by people
who have commercial interests in telling these lies.
Please make sure you are not an instrument of those guys
if you repeat and repaeat an repeat their lies by adding
your opinion about programmers who are immoral.
I don't know any chess-programmer who is a shit-guy!!
They all are nice guys, and I would trust them all.
But I know many many many guys making business with them,
telling lies and vaccinate other people with desinformation.
This is called PROPAGANDA !
Here in germany we have a good historical tradition for
Propaganda.
Stop the postings about
Marty HIrsch is a shit...because his Mchess has killer openings
Richard Lang is a shit because he sent a different DOS-Genius4
to the swedish-guys
Chris Whittington is a shit because he uses "old ideas" in his
chess program
Vincent is a shit because he has said: CSTAL is shit and and and.
The programs are good. The programmers are nice.
Let the programs play against each other.
Test them. And lets sit together and drink after the games,
share good moments.
Its christmas time next:
many nice and strong programs will come out of the market.
Some others are launched yet.
Let us buy them all and chat about the results and positions.
Let us talk with the programmers why their programs play this and
that, let us try to make the programs stronger.
But let us stop attacking until christmas is over and all
programs are sold heavily that the commercial programmer earn
enough to live good and produce another version next year.
I have the same problem. I do always attack Fritz.
But I would never attack Frans Morsch.
My problem with fritz is THE WAY it plays. Not if
frans morsch has no ethics.
We all have our favours. Our prejudices. Me too.
I don't like pimps and
materialists, people who exploit programmers talent and
make much money out of it (the money shall go to the
programmers directly!!)
I don't like censorship and lies.
AGAIN:
I have met many programmers over the years,
I don't think that these men are unfriendly guys.
They do a very difficult job. They work for years and years
on the same idea, nobody pays attention. Nobody gives them money.
I would never write a weak article about a program, because
i don't like the programmer or i have different interests
because of commercial connections.
I don't have any commercial interests.
If my oponent in a discussion shows me games his program has played,
I will replay them and then he can convince me. Why should I not
trust him?? If somebody shows me 40 or 50 games,
played on the same machines, with fritz4 killing any other program...
I will believe that fritz4 is that strong.
Then I will accept that it is that strong.
I gave Vincent Chess System Tal because I saw DIEP play in Den
Haag and I liked the way it played and I talked with
Vincent and I found: he is a nice guy.
I told Chris, maybe we should exchange version
and then a strange thread started where Vincent attacked
chris and said chess system tal is shit.
I don't understand this. Maybe it is the media we are using.
The internet makes communication very anonym.
In Paderborn some people came to me and asked me:
What, this is XYZ-programmer?? But he is a nice guy.
He can't be XYZ-programmer. We heard that he is a
mean guy who is punching and attacking others with his hands.
Thats what I meant with:
there are rumors, launched by people behind the scene
(not concurrent programmers, but mainly their fans or 2nd
rank behind the programmers) who have INTEREST to launch them.
I think this is really "few ethics". We should stop
to buy or communicate with THOSE people.
Any comments?!
Mark Rawlings
Enough of this Killer Book war. I want all of the programmers to
start a *price* war!!
Mark
Don Fong
In article <54em61$7...@boursy.news.erols.com>,
Mark Rawlings <raw...@erols.com> wrote:
|Enough of this Killer Book war. I want all of the programmers to
|start a *price* war!!
it's tough to beat CRAFTY, GNUCHESS, or REBEL DECADE on price.
--
don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
Eric Hallsworth
In article <01bbbd27$54e94ad0$1697e784@don>, Alexander Fuchs
<w3fu...@fsrz2.rz.uni-passau.de> writes
>
>
>Eric Hallsworth <er...@elhchess.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Beitrag
><wEsZGAAR...@elhchess.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <5450ep$c...@lex.zippo.com>, Graham Laight <?@?> writes
>> >Eric Hallsworth's list should, in theory, work against programs with
>cooked
>> >books, because it also takes games against humans into account. Cooked
>books
>> >would be expected to get worse results against humans.
>> >
>>
>> In fact MCP5 did edge into top place for a couple of months, but is now
>> back in 4th, though there are only 13 Elo points between the top 5 in my
>> last Issue..... which was before the Rebel8 results started coming in!
>>
>
>Is this list available on the net ?
>
I usually post the top ratings to r.g.c.c when the bi-monthly magazine
goes off to the printers. These include the top PC progs, the top few
dedicated computers, and the top few portables.
The magazine is half my source of income, and is available only by
subscription, sorry.
>What's the difference in approach between your list and the Swedish one ?
Not so much, really.
[1] I incorporate results from computer v human tournaments and matches
into the overall and individual ratings.
[2] The list is geared to British rating levels rather than Ply's
Swedish levels, and CCR's USCF levels, though I include an Elo rating
calculated from the BCF grading using the formula (BCF x 8) +600.
[3] I include the Swedish scores, by their kind permission, as well as
results sent to me by own own magazine readers, so my results are based
on more games than Sweden's...... however
[4] I accept and include results from a time control of G/60 and 60/60,
whereas Sweden only uses 40/2. I have compared many results, and believe
that the rating differences are absolutely negligible. Thus (in my view)
a correspondent may be able during a week to play 8 or 10 games on my
time controls, whereas in Sweden they would perhaps only have time for 3
or 4. I think the 10 games at 60/60 will get us to an accurate grading
more quickly (and pleasurably?) than 4 at 40/2. However (again) the
emergence of the great auto-tester means that users can let their
programs play 40/2 overnight and garner results much more easily, so my
acceptance of 60/60 results has become of less importance, except where
a dedicated computer or a 'non auto-testable' program is involved. And
we don't even need to watch the chess!... which was why I thought the
programs were purchased! The auto-tester is great for programming teams,
of course.
Hope that helps
--
Best wishes,
Eric Hallsworth, Computer Chess Magazine, The Red House,
46 High Street, Wilburton, Cambs CB6 3RA
Alexander Fuchs
Mark Rawlings <raw...@erols.com> schrieb im Beitrag
<54em61$7...@boursy.news.erols.com>...
> Enough of this Killer Book war. I want all of the programmers to
> start a *price* war!!
>
Ed did not only begin ( he was right to do so) the "killer book war" but
also your price war!
Here in Germany you can get Rebel 8 for half the usual price till the end
of November!
I think the same applies elsewhere.
Alexander
Albert Silver
> - Aegon time controls: 1:30 for the game + 0:20 for every move is very
> good for humans. Especially the extra 20 seconds is a huge advantage to
> humans since they can avoid lots of losses by time control.
I agree that the time control is efficient for avoiding losses on time
but the issue it seems to me is the rating. The Aegon results are
accurate for ITS time control, but not for 40/2h time controls. Even if
the players DO end up with an average of 30 seconds a move (I'm
generously counting 20 moves of instantaneous opening theory for this
figure) it's a far cry from an average of 3 MINUTES per move. I know I
find far better moves in a slow time control than in a 30 minute time
control, yet these programs ahcieved their TPRs against humans at a
faster (and thus better for them) time control. On the other hand, I do
seem to recall Mephisto, some years back, organizing tournaments (or at
least sponsoring them) in which it would throw its latest brainchild, in
which it did quite well. Perhaps the solution would be to do something
similiar? After all it (whichever program (and programmer) undertook
this challenge) doesn't have to play against the top ten to be
considered a valid result does it? Organize a cheap (if that's
possible) 10 round IM tournament in which the program is the 11th player
so that the players have a chance to score a norm from the 9 games
between themselves and the tenth game (the program, not being officially
rated, would not prejudice the players) would help establish once and
for all the REAL TOURNAMENT rating of the said program.
Albert Silver
Robert Hyatt
Alexander Fuchs (w3fu...@fsrz2.rz.uni-passau.de) wrote:
:
:
: A.Mader <andrea...@siemens.at> schrieb im Beitrag
: <3263CE...@siemens.at>...
: > Komputer Korner wrote:
: > >
: > I can understand Ed's feelings, but I also understand e.g. Alex Kures
: > feelings. He (and some others) worked for 2 years to make a good opening
: > book for Nimzo (without any cooked variations). His work would have been
: > in vain if only "pure" chess engines are allowed in further
: > competitions.
: >
:
: Nobody has anything against powerful opening-books - they make progs
: stronger and are important.
:
: But those killer lines (>20 moves in the book
While I can't say much about the Rebel vs Mchess Pro book problem this thread
is "on" about, long book lines are not uncommon. I've seen at least one IM
resign at move 50 against Crafty, while Crafty was still in book. I saw
Roman play one game against crafty where crafty resigned right out of book
as it was dead lost (this encouraged me to not play lines without at least
one win, by the way. :) ) Last night, I watched an IM go to move 30 in
Crafty's book, and he resigned exactly 3 moves later.
Bottom line is that long lines don't necessarily mean traps. Nor do they
absolutely mean cooks. That *can* mean stupid play by the opponent, or an
opponent using a book that has a bad line (maybe we call this a self-killer
book? :) ) NO! A "suicide" book line. :) Or even a Kavork. book line...
In any case, long lines with huge evals don't always mean things are not what
they seem. In Ed/Marty's case, I'll let 'em slug it out as I have neither the
time nor the inclination to play matches between them to see this stuff. In
the case of Crafty, this is going to happen however. Bruce and I play games
all the time on ICC, and some book lines end up +3 for Crafty, others end up
-3. *Neither one of us* has fooled with special lines for each other. Quite
the opposite, we are trying for reasonable lines, period. Of course, if your
opponent chooses to step on a Claymore, <boom>...
Bob
Komputer Korner
Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
Bob, does that make Crafty the biggest selling chess program in history?
50,000 x $0.00 = ?
Komputer Korner
Oh, I forgot about the mass market programs and even all of Rebel's
incarnations have sold more.
Komputer Korner
mclane wrote:
>snipped
Dear mclane,
The following was info provided in another post by
Tony Hedlund.
They ARE saving most of the games. And you can get them from the BBS
Grottan
at number: +46 31 992 301.
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Hi Sheila,
you replied to Kevin:
Sheila Popcorn <pink...@primenet.com> schrieb im Beitrag
<32648c93...@news.primenet.com>...
> On 15 Oct 1996 10:52:08 GMT, "Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
...
> I agree...In business..superior products should win out. ...
>
> Sheila Popstein
Well the only question is what the user will regard as the "superior
product"
For me its the program with better paying style and playing strength while
killer openings are making a (perhaps otherwise good) program inferior in
my eyes.
So I as a user have the freedom to decide which program I regard as a real
winner: that one whose opening programmer(s) is in no need of gathering
points by unfair play. It's only a small issue in computer chess, but it is
of some more importance generally.
This is by the way the reason why civilized societies could never work on
the basis of success without rules - as Manchester capitalism tried in a
very dirty way in the last century, even if lots of new capitalists seem to
lick their fingers in view of getting back to good old dirty tricky times:
*this* is exactly the consequence of any naive "fight or die"-logic. It's a
stupid lie and spells "fight and die" for most of those participating in
this dirty kind of combat since centuries and milleniums...
So even a boxing game "won" by a cut into the stomach is not won as long as
a referree is watching and rules are still worth something!
I'm glad it is this way and not like dirt catching or the stupid kind of
boxing they are doing.
Yours Dirk
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Hi Chris, hi Thorsten,
I hardly believed my eyes when I saw how you two were surpassing each other
in efforts to make the killer book subject a non-subject. And it really
moved me to tears - short before Chrismas coming nearer which seems to
effect something stronge and strange upon your souls - who you managed to
talk about killer books with more hot emotions than cool arguments.
So in short to remind you of the two or three facts which are easy to
understand and easy to keep in mind:
1) Killer books are easy to recognize: if a program regularly gets out of
an opening with two pawns up to a mate in x, this is normally called a
killer book or cooking.
2) The really bad and absolutely unacceptable thing about killer books is
that they are used against older programs which are determined by their
engines and have *no* chance to avoid beeing beaten - not by another engine
but by a human doing a bad, bad job: having all the time for long term
analyses (even with the help of comuter analysis) against programs which
are helpless.
To do this is the low low level of kidding but it would normally be quite a
ridiculous way of wasting time for an adult person, if we hadn't point 3:
3) Killer books are made for only one reason: to gain points in the Swedish
list without overheating the chess engine :-)))
4) Killer books together with not killing doubles then lead to comletely
distorted game results. In effect you don't get the results of engine
strength together with good books, but you get for a big part a human
database of cooked middlegame wins.
5) Getting distorted results has some monetary effect. Nobody knows how big
it really is, but beeing able to call yourself "No 1 on the SSDF list" at
least means something in this context.
6) Now if you buy a program which you think is best on the list you are
simply cheated. And the other prgrammers in competition with the program
using killer books exensively - and no program ever used killer lines only
nearly as intensive as Sandro's Mchess 5 book - are cheated as well.
So if you doubt the importance of the topic, you - Chris and Thorsten -
might perhaps be so kind and doubt them by refuting some of the obove
points instead of thinking about Christmas and (Thorsten) Christians - as a
pastor I can tell you two or three things about these topics as well if you
wish some fundamental information :-)))
Preferybly this should be done in personal mails instead of doing it here,
don't you think?
There are only a few more things to be commented:
mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> schrieb im Beitrag
<326B0E...@prima.ruhr.de>...
> Chris Whittington wrote:
> >
> > "Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Marty,
> > >
> >
> > Guys, guys, guys.
> >
> > We know the Christmas release and sales season is upon us.
> >
> > To paraphrase Clausevitz: 'war on rgcc is an extension of the
> > SSDF list by other means'.
> >
> > The blame war you're fighting says (not my words, or thoughts), so
> > far:
> >
...
Talking about (relatively narrow) tournament books of top programs
> > Now these programs have been cooked, they complain.
They are absolutely right in doing so (see above)
And now listen to the high priest of absolution feeling Christmas coming
near :-)
> > Nobody is doing anything wrong.
> > Simply what has happened is that the *interaction* between various
> > people doing nothing wrong has generated a minor 'systems' failure.
> >
> > Its no good blaming individuals for this.
> >
> > And its not exactly a catastrophic failure.
As long as you don't regard it as wrong what I described above. Dont't
you??
If you don't, you seem to have funny ethics in my eyes.
> > Solution:
> >
> > 1. Create more variance in opening books. Fritz for example
> > is impossible to cook, because the opening variance is so high.
Just give the next Fritz a higher rating and Sandro more autotesting
machines! ;-)
...
> >
> > Chris Whittington
>
And now for Thorsten, an old friend of mine:
> Yes - it's christmas time again.
> Because I am no christ, I don't want to kill anybody.
You mean, since I am a Christian, I want to kill somebody?
Can you explain the strange logic of your sentence within this newsgroup
here and know.
Do you want to begin a personal discussion about relogious belief or just
denouce someone personally while lacking arrguments?
> So please you christs:
> stop the shit discussion about killer-books.
Would you be so kind and notice:
I will talk about everything which is topic in this newsgroup just as often
and as along as I wish to do so.
In turn I would prefer it if you could return to a kind of exchanging
arguments which is acceptable between civilized people.
> The whole time in computerchess there were strange lines
> in machines that were cooked out maybe.
> It was never a problem to find out how strong these machines were,
> because you don't have to use the killer book.
Seems you still haven't got the point is the resulting rating beeing simply
cooked as well in the Swedish list.
And I know very well that you know very well how important - willing or not
- this list has become as a reference for playing strength, also having
some (not all) effect on selling programs
> Since we have the swedish-list, the problems occured.
> But the problems have nothing to do with ethics.
This seems to me to be only true as long as you aren't only in search for
computer results, but in search for some kind of ethics as well ;-)
> You can discuss if killer book are mean or fair.
> Thats 1 point.
> But the problem IS and WAS that the swedish guys do NOT
> document their results.
...
This is a point about which we agree since long, but it has only indirectly
to do with the killer book problem.
> And we discuss if the programmers are to blame for opening-books.
Simply because after all the information we have Mchess 5 misused cooking
possibilities to an extent never known before by any other program. And
this has to be discussed to the effect that the programmers of the best
programs should agree on banning this kind of cooking in the future.
I will never buy Mchess 6 if Marty will allow Sandro to continue with this
kind of cooking...
> I don't want to FORCE any programmer not to use killer-books.
> WHY should we force anybody?
Because cooking is
a) completely disturbing real results. And real results (played by engines
and not by humans against past computers) are the only thing I'm interested
in.
b) because I regard it as exremely unfair to become the No 1 in a competion
list with such means!
> If you have a concurrent program, write a learning-function
> and the whole problem is solved in an intelligent way.
What seems to you to be so intelligent of seeing endless and often boring
variations of stupid killer lines, which are often anything else than
interesting contributions to computer chess.
This is definitely nothing I as a user am interested in!
> But do not judge about the programmers.
> Do not imply that mchess should not be bought
> because it uses a "killer-book".
>
> This is just disgusting!
I have every right not to buy a program which I dislike for cooking. I
really can't see anything "disgusting" about this.
And I will inform all of my friends about the kind of playing strength
which is stolen this way.
The way it is stolen is exactly the thing which in my ethics is called
"disgusting".
Perhaps you can tell me more of the kind of ethics you are using?
> The Mchess-engine CAN PLAY VERY GOOD CHESS.
> Everybody who says different is not saying the truth.
I said the same thing, so what?
You just forgot to mention that after all we know it never would have
become the Swedish No 1.
If this is true, then it has simply stolen this title my means I regard as
competely unacceptable!
> M-chess would be a strong program without opening book.
>
> The same is true for Rebel. Of course with Hiarcs.
>
> These killer-book rumors are often LAUNCHED by people
> who have commercial interests in telling these lies.
Who for example?
Which lies are you talking of?
> Please make sure you are not an instrument of those guys
> if you repeat and repaeat an repeat their lies by adding
> your opinion about programmers who are immoral.
>
> I don't know any chess-programmer who is a shit-guy!!
Seems it is exactly you who prefers speaking in dirty language.
Has anybody else here used such words?
Have I missed something???
> They all are nice guys, and I would trust them all.
> But I know many many many guys making business with them,
> telling lies and vaccinate other people with desinformation.
> This is called PROPAGANDA !
Talk concrete or leave it!
Who exactly is doing what exactly?
I'm not interested in dark clouded persecution theories... ;-)
> Here in germany we have a good historical tradition for
> Propaganda.
> Stop the postings about
> Marty HIrsch is a shit...because his Mchess has killer openings
Anybody ever said such a thing or even something coming near to your kind
of expression???
> Let the programs play against each other.
> Test them. And lets sit together and drink after the games,
> share good moments.
> Its christmas time next:
> many nice and strong programs will come out of the market.
> Some others are launched yet.
> Let us buy them all and chat about the results and positions.
> Let us talk with the programmers why their programs play this and
> that, let us try to make the programs stronger.
> But let us stop attacking until christmas is over and all
> programs are sold heavily that the commercial programmer earn
> enough to live good and produce another version next year.
Ok I think I begin to understand: the porgrammers are all nice guys and the
killer bookers as well, and we should all buy as much chess programs as we
can to give some spiritual meaning to Christmas, since the Christinas are
killers as you mentioned above.
And under tears we will fall into each others arms and exchange cook
recipes and feel oh so well beeing allowed to see some deeply moving
learning variations of killer books as our bright stars in the silent
night!
Really nice world you are living in, Thorsten ... Merry Christmas!
> I have the same problem. I do always attack Fritz.
Really?
I never noticed this before :-)))))
> But I would never attack Frans Morsch.
Because he is a programmer and the bad guys are the non-programmers (by
default)
> My problem with fritz is THE WAY it plays. Not if
> frans morsch has no ethics.
> We all have our favours. Our prejudices. Me too.
How could this ever happen to you? Your present mail is so decent I never
would have thought this.
> I don't like pimps and
> materialists, people who exploit programmers talent and
> make much money out of it (the money shall go to the
> programmers directly!!)
> I don't like censorship and lies.
>
Of cause we others love censorship and all that, probably especially if we
are Christians... ;-)
> I think this is really "few ethics". We should stop
> to buy or communicate with THOSE people.
Exactly with whom???
With whom should I stop to communicate?
Or perhaps who should immediately stop communicating with me to avoid
dangers of ethical health?
Just to help me finding my way through the jungle of computer chess ethics!
:-)))
> Any comments?!
Enough for today?
Yours Dirk
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Hi Marty,
Since I know your programs I liked them.
And I haven't any reason to dislike you either.
But it is really annoying that you still do not admit the difference
between a book serving the engine and cooking variations which simply lead
to winning games against helpless older programs with big scores between
won pawns and mate in x after leaving the book. There is simply *nothing*
fair about doing so - no matter who did so, and I agree with you that some
other programming teams (since good old Fidelity times) tried something of
this kind from time to time.
The thing is that Mchess 5 has made use of this to an until then unknown
extent know coming with more and more facts (games are sometimes telling
more than comments!) into peoples' view.
So I propose you don't regard this as a try to attack you personally -
which I definetily don't intend to do - nor is the topic about not
recognizing the fine playing strenght and playing style of Mchess.
The only thing the dicussion is good for is reminding the programmers of
the fact that I - and as I know increasingly more others - do not like
killer programming at all (in *no* program!)
So why don't you find an agreement with Richard Lang, Mark Uniacke, Ed
Schroeder, Chrilly Donninger and Frans Morsch (only to speak of some of the
most prominent programmers) not to use killer variations.
You can be shure I will attack anyone breaking such an agreement no matter
who he is not regarding person or program.
I simply put so much stress upon that because I do like well prepared books
suiting a program's strength but meanwhile not liking at all killer
variations - beeing shure you very well understand - and Sandro even better
- what I mean by "killer variations" or "cooking" in contrast to well done
books.
--
Yours Dirk
MCHESS PRO <mche...@aol.com> schrieb im Beitrag
<54e2m9$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>...
> Alexander Fuchs wrote:
>
> >Yes, that's probably the only way we can get rid of the killer books.
> Don't
> >buy the program(s) that have these killer books. Although I like
M-chess,
> I
> >don't think I am going to buy version 6.
>
> I really do not see any justification for a reaction of this sort.
>
> Before each MChess version is released I have made great efforts to make
> the program and the opening book as strong as possible. With MChess Pro
> 5.0 this was quite successful and produced outstanding results in a
> variety of situations against both human and computer opponents. MChess
> beat three grandmasters in AEGON, outscored Rebel, Genius and Hiarcs in
> two separate matches against the Finish National Chess Team, and won the
> 1995 Microcomputer World Championship in Paderborn in a field of amateur
> and NEW commercial opponents.
>
> In Paderborn M-Chess Pro 5.0 won a playoff against Chess Genius despite
> playing into a specific MChess killer line they had prepared.
>
> Now Ed Shroeder has stepped up to attack MChess with a barrage of
innuendo
> and emotionally charged buzzwords.
>
Komputer Korner
Ed Schr=F6der wrote:
> =
> From: m10...@abc.se (Urban Koistinen)
> Ed Schr=F6der (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
> =
> ES: Correct, and if you remove these doubles (won, draw or lost) you will=
> ES: exclude that part, INCLUDING the cooks! Remember a cooked line can
> only
> ES: gain just *ONE* win and not *FIVE* , *SEVEN* or more.
> =
> : If the SSDF adopted a policy of removing double games, don't you
> : think a program using cooks would add some randomness to its play
> : once the game is easily won to avoid having the game removed?
> =
> Sure, even more tricks are possible.
> =
> As I said not counting double games is not a perfect solution.
> It helps.
> =
> There seems to be no EASY and CLEAN solution to solve the problem.
> =
> - Ed -
Well, the computers could all go back to school and become learners!!!!
I just think that whether you think Marty is cooking or not, this type
of thing is impossible to police in the long run. Humans cannot be
cooked against in the long run because they are learners. The same thing
has to happen for every chess program. =
-- =
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Hi Bob,
I always thought the Swedish is nothing but quite a useful mirror of
relative playing strength of programs against each other.
Nevertheless I'd like to see this mirror as clean as possible (not perfect:
I don't believe at all in perfectionist ways of living and working).
Nobody can force the SSDF-Testers - who had all my respect for a long time
- to finally do three changes, which in my eyes are absolutely necessary
since long. This changes seem to be easily done, and their hesitation is
hard for me to understand:
1) Kill doubles! Kill doubles!! Kill doubles!!! (Results like Mchess
against Hiarcs like 19-0 or so with 17 double games of a cooked book are
simply destroying the basis for any serious rating soon as they are no rare
exception). There is no technical problam at all about doing so.
2) Test your hardware before playing games to get an impression of how fast
it really is. Let programs play on machines which are really (and not just
by name) comparably fast. Again: I will never complain about 4% speed
difference or so.
3) Make the games(!) and not only the results accecible to everyone. I
can't see any reason why SSDF games played are not as accessable as Ed
Schroeders games (within his home page). There is absolutely no database
problem for such a thing nowadays and for me personally this is the only
way for getting back trust in the Swedish results I found so helpful such a
long time. I must admit that I lost my old trust in their results after all
that has come to my viev during the last months...
And if then 4) the top programmers agree on not forcing cooking any more
I'm quite confident the Swedish list will get back the good reputation it
should have.
This does of course not mean that playing against humans isn't worth
looking at.
Instead it will become more and more important soon as the programs begin
to beat IMs and GMs reagularly in normal tournament games!
Yours Dirk
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
<545j1c$3...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
> Dirk Frickenschmidt (di...@jimknopf.wupper.de) wrote:
> : Hi Bob,
> :
> ... Ditto for ratings like the SSDF. It is
> an interesting exercise, but has likely gotten so distorted that the
rankings
> don't have much to do with program strength, except that those near the
top are
> good, those near the bottom are not so good. However, to take two
numbers like
> 2395 and 2402 and say the 2402 player is better is actually pretty funny
when
> you think about it. And that's the resolution we are seeing at the top,
and
> everyone takes that 7 point spread as significant, when it isn't. A 50
point
> spread seems to not mean much in light of repeated games and book cooks.
Maybe
> even 100 points doesn't mean anything now. And yet the numbers are
treated as
> absolute measurements, accurate to the nearest "Elo point" of *exactly*
how
> two programs compare.
>
> The rating system can't be fixed easily, everyone simply has to become
familiar
> with what the SSDF ratings show, what they don't show, and act
accordingly. I'm
> already pissed that I can't walk away from my lawn mower because some
idiot in
> Washington passed a law that supposedly prevents that mower from backing
up over
> me and amputating my feet. If I let go on a hill, I ought to get run
over.
> Education works better than legislation every time. Don't use the SSDF
to
> figure out which is really best, unless you want to know "out of that
pool of
> programs which wins the most games among themselves." Don't extrapolate
to
> answer "which would play the best game against Kasparov?" The data isn't
> there...
> :
> : Please note: for me as a computer programs user there is simply
*nothing*
> : attractive or even acceptable in such an extensive use of killer
> : variations. Of course I can't force anyone to respect my opinion, but I
can
> : descide which programs I will buy and use...
> :
> : So if enough users will express their disgust for this kind of
programming,
> : programmers perhaps will slowly learn to see this as a hint to
concentrate
> : on real playing strength: and Marty certainly belongs to those who have
to
> : offer enough here.
> :
> : I really don't have anything against Marty or his program: but quite a
lot
> : against this kind of cooking!
> : It's enough to give a program the type of openings it plays better than
> : others.
> :
> : This is simply what I as one of the users wants from Mchess just as
from
> : *any* chess program: good play, nice book, no cooks!
> :
> : And if Mchess6 or any other program continues with this kind of thing,
I
> : will simply not buy it and not recommend it to anyone.
> : Active disinterest, if you understand what I mean :-)
> :
> : Yours Dirk
>
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Hi Bruce,
you hit the critical point in one sentence.
The only thing which really makes me wonder is how many people in this idea
seemingly do not get the critical point at all!
They seem to think its a cavaliers delict or some funny kind of dogfight
for them as spectators, if opening programmers like Sandro are using such
al lot of outbooking for a program like Mchess 5 against absolutely
determined and helpless older programs.
Yours Dirk
brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> schrieb im Beitrag
<3266CD...@nwlink.com>...
...
replying to Ed Schroeder:
>
> I agree with you, if the data presented is correct, it's a bad trend. It
is
> apparently an attempt to falsify matches between MChess and other
programs, in
> order to gain an artificially inflated ELO rating, in order to mislead
consumers
> as to how strong MChess will play against THEM.
>
> I don't know what to do about it, other than to ignore the Swedish list.
>
> bruce
Dirk Frickenschmidt
--
Yours Dirk
Anders Thulin <a...@nala.devnet.lejonet.se> schrieb im Beitrag
<547uo7$m...@nala.devnet.lejonet.se>...
> In article <01bbbae1$7214e300$d648e0c2@eil>,
> Enrique Irazoqui <en...@bitmailes.net> wrote:
>
> >Whether or not the inclusion of cooked lines in the opening book is a
fair
> >approach, it may morally be a matter of opinion. In practical terms what
I
> >find not arguable is that "killer books" give a false idea of the real
> >strength of a chess engine.
>
> If strength is measured in some other way than by winning, yes.
In any sport, winning is bound to the ethics of rules.
"Winning" a boxing fight by shooting down the other boxer is no win, or is
it for you?
So winning "anyhow" seems not to be an acceptable idea to me.
By the way this is normally accepted in *no* area of life amoung
*civilized* people: neither in sports nor in socio-econimic categories -
exept amoung people who like "fighting by any means" like the knew kind of
fight in the USA (I think it was New York) where they demonstrate how
barbarian spectators with small brains and big problems can behave or
amoung those who find the economic Manchester-liberalism of the last
century attractive... Winning without rules to me is nothing else but
nonsense: in any area of life.
> A
> wrestler may be physically stronger than a judo expert, but if the
> wrestler is lying down when the match is over, there's no question
> about who has won.
Have you ever thought about the reason why they normally don't let
wrestlers fight judo experts ?
So fight-or-die ideology without rules in my eyes is nothing more than an
especially stupid form of barbarism.
> --
> Anders Thulin Anders...@lejonet.se 013 - 23 55 32
> Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
Yours Dirk
Alexander Fuchs
Komputer Korner
Komputer Korner wrote:
>
> Robert Hyatt wrote:
> >
>
> Bob, does that make Crafty the biggest selling chess program in history?
> 50,000 x $0.00 = ?
> --
> The komputer that couldn't kompute the square root of
> 36^n.
That leads us to the next question. What is the total market per year
of chess programs? No.of units (commercial and free) and $ value.
In other words, just how important are we in Wall Street's eyes?
--
john quill taylor
mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote:
>...
>Any comments?!
What a wonderful article you have written! You make
many excellent points. I really like the style of
your writing. There is a chess book written in this
style (the title and author escape me at the moment)
that contains the same "German thought process expressed
in English"; anyway, I have the book at home and you
reminded me of it.
When I bought my latest M-Chess 5.0 (upgrade) from ICD,
it contained a free copy of Rebel Decade. This is the
kind of spirit and co-operation I like to see among
programmers. Perhaps they could bundle both commercial
programs together in a future release for a discount price!
Most people who buy chess programs buy several of them,
not just one program. Wouldn't it be great if some day
we could buy all the programs on one CD after the yearly
tournament, with all the games logged and with the ability
to use separate books or a common book?
Maybe chess book development should be considered a separate
task; as a few have already mentioned, a programmer could
release free book updates to all customers. Of course we
won't need books when the computers can beat the best humans,
which is always predicted to occur five years from the
present day, whatever the present day may be...
__
john quill taylor / /\
writer at large / / \
Hewlett-Packard, Storage Systems Division __ /_/ /\ \
Boise, Idaho U.S.A. /_/\ __\ \ \_\ \
e-mail: jqta...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com \ \ \/ /\\ \ \/ /
Telephone: (208) 396-2328 (MDT = GMT - 6) \ \ \/ \\ \ /
Snail Mail: Hewlett-Packard \ \ /\ \\ \ \
11413 Chinden Blvd \ \ \ \ \\ \ \
Boise, Idaho 83714 \ \ \_\/ \ \ \
Mailstop 852 \ \ \ \_\/
\_\/
"When in doubt, do as doubters do." - jqt -
haiti, rwanda, cuba, bosnia, ... we have a list,
where is our schindler?
Robert Hyatt
Komputer Korner (kor...@netcom.ca) wrote:
: Robert Hyatt wrote:
: >
:
: Bob, does that make Crafty the biggest selling chess program in history?
: 50,000 x $0.00 = ?
: --
: Komputer Korner
: The komputer that couldn't kompute the square root of
: 36^n.
First, I have no idea how many other copies of chess programs have
been sold.
Of course, second, I have no idea how many of that 50,000+ are duplicates
due to the dozens of versions of Crafty. While I might not beat all the
commercial guys in head-to-head chess, I can beat 'em in total number
of different versions... :)
Bob
Ed Schröder
mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote:
And MY feeling says that the only thing what is wrong here is your
posting. What a crab.
- Ed Schroder -
>is this utopia?
>
>opening-books
Chris Whittington
"Dirk Frickenschmidt" <di...@jimknopf.wupper.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris, hi Thorsten,
>
> I hardly believed my eyes when I saw how you two were surpassing each other
> in efforts to make the killer book subject a non-subject.
What is this ?
This is Thorten's stuff you're replying to, not mine.
Kindly don't lump me together with other people again.
If you look at other posts, you'll see I have a perfectly
consistent line about this issue (and its totally different to
Thorsten's).
I could also say that you are totally ignoring points that I've raised.
Now go away and read more carefully before being so insulting.
Chris Whittington
> ....
> Talking about (relatively narrow) tournament books of top programs
>
> > > Now these programs have been cooked, they complain.
>
> They are absolutely right in doing so (see above)
>
> And now listen to the high priest of absolution feeling Christmas coming
> near :-)
> > > Nobody is doing anything wrong.
> > > Simply what has happened is that the *interaction* between various
> > > people doing nothing wrong has generated a minor 'systems' failure.
> > >
> > > Its no good blaming individuals for this.
> > >
> > > And its not exactly a catastrophic failure.
>
> As long as you don't regard it as wrong what I described above. Dont't
> you??
>
> If you don't, you seem to have funny ethics in my eyes.
>
> > > Solution:
> > >
> > > 1. Create more variance in opening books. Fritz for example
> > > is impossible to cook, because the opening variance is so high.
> Just give the next Fritz a higher rating and Sandro more autotesting
> machines! ;-)
>
> ....
> ....
Vincent Diepeveen
In <54aou7$6...@juniper.cis.uab.edu> hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>: Each year we have the Aegon tournament.
>: 1994 Rebel got a TPR of 2460 or so
>: 1995 Rebel got a TPR of 2470 or so
>: 1996 Rebel got a TPR of 2530 or so
>: These TPR's come pretty close to SSDF ratings.
>: Moreover a few other chess programs did even better than Rebel
>: both in 1995 and 1996!
>: Bob, this is 1996, times are changing.
>Yep, but they haven't changed *that* much. Non-tournament time controls,
>a "party" atmosphere, etc. Try (maybe) the World Open or some such event.
>Or play a strong GM a match of 8 games at 40/2. I don't think you or
>anyone will do well there, I know Crafty wouldn't, yet in the past week I
>watched Crafty go 10-0 at 5 3 games against a GM, 6-1-1 against the best
>GM playing on ICC (no names, you can figure it out though), 14-0 against a
>very good IM at 5 10 games, etc. But these are all "for fun" with no prize
>at stake. Even GM's need "motivation." And when they get motivated, they
>can be something to behold.
There are 2 ways you can play chess against an opponent:
a) you can ignore the opponent and play objectively chess.
b) you can subjectively play chess, knowing your opponents strong/weak points.
I think that the big problem in human-computer matches is not the
strength of computers. Programs definitely are terrible strong. In certain
positions i do not even try to critizise my programs opinion. Few months
ago mainly tactical, currently i sometimes also don't even try to question
its positional judgement of a position.
The problem in human-computers is the difference in intelligence.
No doubt that there are strong players (GM's). No doubt that there are
strong programs. Probably objectively just as strong.
If a human however KNOWS that he must play a program, and he can win money
with it, then the human will try to use his intelligence, and become a problem
for the chessprogram even if objectively they play just as strong.
As soon as you make a program and give users an executable they will be
able to find a position it cannot handle.
A GM besides this intelligence has also the advantage of being capable to
play tactical not bad (so not piece/pawn giving away play), nor positional.
The money will get him concentrated ending up in a disaster for the program.
Lucky no GM does know much about programs, otherwise... :)
They sometimes find positions a program cannot handle, but usually they don't
investigate how they can get this position ALWAYS from the opening(sbook).
The programmers luck is: most chessplayers want to play correctly. Usually
a program is forced in this case to also play accurately.
When they would however play a line against programs which objectively is
very bad (like starting with a rook less against Fritz), the win could
be much easier.
This all because of the fact that a human is intelligent, and a computer
is not. A computer follows rules, and you only need to find a general gap
in the rules. It seems however that the more knowledge a program has,
the more difficult it is for a human to find wholes.
Insiders however know bugs which are very severe.
What about a match Diepeveen - Rebel8, 25 minutes a game, me playing
at a normal board, and rebel at a pentium pro, and as it doesn't matter
for Rebel, i prefer to play all games with white.
I'll probably loose the match. Now let's see, how can i win from Rebel.
Well, Ed, what about putting money on it... :)
That could change the result of the match not?
Of course i'll practice few games at home (already did find a huge gap).
Lucky for Ed the gap in Rebel is not as huge like the Fritz knowledge gap... :)
In fact i think Rebel is the strongest tournament level program.
Perhaps this match is not possible within few tens of years!
Vincent
--
+--------------------------------------+
|| email : vdie...@cs.ruu.nl ||
|| Vincent Diepeveen ||
+======================================+
GUSTAVO ALBARRAN
I think all this subject can be summarized in a few points:
- As human players have opening preparation (in some cases very deep), chess
software should also have their own.
- Killer books, have their human parallel on GM preparation for individual
matches. We have seen lots of examples of World title and candidate matches
games where one of the contenders clearly outplayed his opponent on the opening
phase, basically preparing *killer novelties* on the other side repertoire!
- Narrow and deep repertoire is a characteristic of many of most important
players in history. Just to mention a recent example analyze Kasparov
repertoire.
- Learning function is an *essential* feature of any chess software as it works
for humans. I have tested MChess5 learning function and it works very properly.
That avoids duplicate games immediately. Each time I arrived to a better
position at the opening phase against MChess5, the following game it introduces
an improvement and works! Is not this an evidence of a good engine?
Gustavo Albarran
Buenos Aires, ARG
---
* MM 1.0b4 #0235 * I had to delete Windows; my cat ate the mouse.
Steven Rix
In article <547aun$2...@news.xs4all.nl>, "Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl>
writes:
->
->:2. We do not prepare traps, we only prepare lines we believe to be
->:objectively strong. We DO NOT hunt for mistakes by other programs.
->
->I think you do.
[Examples]
Pardon me for butting in here and please excuse me if this has all
been answered already, but:
Is the suggestion that the MChess guys have played many human v. Rebel
and/or human+MChess v Rebel games, collected the wins and added the
data to their book? To sufficient depth to allow MChess to find a
forced mate, or something like that.
The alternative possibility is that MChess did all the work itself,
playing hundreds of games against Rebel, learning how to win every
time. If learning programs are the way of the future - and that might
be a good feature for a program to have, IMHO - then this is a
possibility and might well have occurred *on Ed Schroeder's computer*
or as a side-effect of testing a prototype MChess against a rival
package in MChess's labs. In other words, wouldn't a learning program
do this automatically in real life, regardless of the initial state
of its opening book?
On the other hand, if all this book-cooking has happened prior to
shipping and MChess scores 20-0 against an old version of a rival
package (which plays random openings) starting immediately after
installation, then there would indeed appear to be something fishy
going on. If the score is "only" 15-5, doesn't that indicate that
learning is still in progress, i.e. the MChess book isn't completely
cooked against its rivals?
Didn't Hans Berliner write about this sort of thing in the first page
or two of his article about Botvinnik's "feats" in computer chess?
You know, that article which he posted here a few years ago because
the major computer chess journal refused to touch it?
--
Steve Rix
S....@ed.ac.uk http://www.chemeng.ed.ac.uk/people/steve/
Vincent Diepeveen
>"Dirk Frickenschmidt" <di...@jimknopf.wupper.de> wrote:
>> Hi Chris, hi Thorsten,
>What is this ?
>This is Thorten's stuff you're replying to, not mine.
>Kindly don't lump me together with other people again.
Don't worry Chris we will not lump you together with other people,
we'll put you at the garbage... :)
>If you look at other posts, you'll see I have a perfectly
>consistent line about this issue (and its totally different to
>Thorsten's).
>
>I could also say that you are totally ignoring points that I've raised.
Like that your program has 2466?
Or was that a marketing joke (pitfall?)?
>Now go away and read more carefully before being so insulting.
>Chris Whittington
I agree with Chris: whole discussion about killerbooks sucks.
Every GM has a killerbook. I recently lost again a game because of
such a human killerbook. Some GM's Fiderating is based on killerbooks.
Certain programmers will try to write a strong program, and others
with a lot of talent, but at a certain point at their top will try
to make a good book.
Ed Schroeder already uses many years Jeroen Noomen to write books
for him. And HE is blaming another one (Marty Hirsch)
for having a better book?
Of course killerbooks stinks, but it is REALITY. In Formula 1, in buiseness,
in chess, and of course also in computerchess.
I don't understand however 1 thing: suppose my openingsbook is 1 million,
picking randomly a move.
How can you make a killerbook?
At least a million year's work.
You can of course write a killerbook, if the book of your opponent is small.
Now think of this: why would that book be so small.
Because they want to play certain variations?
Why?
Vincent Diepeveen
vdie...@cs.ruu.nl
Kevin James Begley
Dirk Frickenschmidt (di...@jimknopf.wupper.de) wrote:
: 4) Killer books together with not killing doubles then lead to comletely
: distorted game results. In effect you don't get the results of engine
: strength together with good books, but you get for a big part a human
: database of cooked middlegame wins.
If your program is dumb enough to lose twice via the same exact
move order, a mistake not expected of a complete beginner, then
you deserve to lose (in fact, I would argue the program that
"cooked" you deserves a brilliancy prize!).
I don't see anything about "double-jeopardy" in the standard
tournament rule book, why do some of you feel that your
program should be entitled to such a provision? Just try to
tell a TD that your last round loss should not count because
you lost in the exact same manner in an earlier pairing with
the same opponent. Better yet, tell the TD that you only
lost because of your opponent's "killer book." Imagine if
Anand had had made such a claim after round 10 of the PCA
championship. I'm quite sure that when the TD finished laughing,
he'd have reminded Anand, "THAT IS PART OF THE GAME!" Maybe,
it's time a few of you programmers out there get this message.
I suggest you consult some of Bob Hyatt's advice (in another
thread) about how to reduce the probability of getting cooked.
It doesn't seem that you'll need to become an expert on the
opening in order to compete against killer books. Of course,
it wouldn't hurt your program to be capable of brilliant
opening play either.
Kevin.
brucemo
Steven Rix wrote:
> Didn't Hans Berliner write about this sort of thing in the first page
> or two of his article about Botvinnik's "feats" in computer chess?
> You know, that article which he posted here a few years ago because
> the major computer chess journal refused to touch it?
>
> --
> Steve Rix
> S....@ed.ac.uk http://www.chemeng.ed.ac.uk/people/steve/
Now that you mention it, that article does bring this up, and it was eventually
published in the ICCA journal.
Berliner played a game between his program, Patsoc, and some commercial program. His
program lost, so he extended the book by enough moves to avoid the losing move, then
tried again. His program lost again, so he added more book. He repeated this
process until his program won.
This may be exactly what is being done here. Certainly it's something similar.
bruce
Chris Whittington
vdie...@cs.ruu.nl (Vincent Diepeveen) wrote:
>
> In <84597315...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>
> >This is Thorten's stuff you're replying to, not mine.
>
> >Kindly don't lump me together with other people again.
>
> we'll put you at the garbage... :)
I'm not usually blatantly rude to people, but in this case
I think I can safely say that you, Vincent, are a dickhead.
Chris Whittington
>
> >If you look at other posts, you'll see I have a perfectly
> >consistent line about this issue (and its totally different to
> >Thorsten's).
> >
> >I could also say that you are totally ignoring points that I've raised.
>
> Like that your program has 2466?
> Or was that a marketing joke (pitfall?)?
>
> >Now go away and read more carefully before being so insulting.
> >Chris Whittington
>
Chris Whittington
> or two of his article about Botvinnik's "feats" in computer chess?
> You know, that article which he posted here a few years ago because
> the major computer chess journal refused to touch it?
If you mean the appalingly rude and vicious attack by Berliner
against Botwinnik, shortly before Botwinnik's death ? It *was*
published in the ICCA journal.
I've not read a more unpleasant and nasty personal attack on anyone
in a long time.
I also thought, at the time, that the ICCA made a very serious
error of judgement (to say the least) to contain such scurrilous,
personal vindictiveness in what purports to be a scientific journal.
Chris Whittington
Komputer Korner
Chris Whittington wrote:
>
Chris, you didn't take into account a different cultural understanding
of humour and the smile character.
Tim Mirabile
Albert Silver <ka...@embratel.net.br> wrote:
>> - Aegon time controls: 1:30 for the game + 0:20 for every move is very
>> good for humans. Especially the extra 20 seconds is a huge advantage to
>> humans since they can avoid lots of losses by time control.
>
>I agree that the time control is efficient for avoiding losses on time
>but the issue it seems to me is the rating. The Aegon results are
>accurate for ITS time control, but not for 40/2h time controls. Even if
>the players DO end up with an average of 30 seconds a move (I'm
>generously counting 20 moves of instantaneous opening theory for this
>figure) it's a far cry from an average of 3 MINUTES per move. I know I
>find far better moves in a slow time control than in a 30 minute time
>control, yet these programs ahcieved their TPRs against humans at a
>faster (and thus better for them) time control.
Yes, this is a bit faster than standard time controls. Is it a Fischer
(increment) or Bronstein (delay) control? If it is Fischer you get an
equivalent of 40 in 1:43, then 20 sec/move thereafter. If you try to
ration your base time so it lasts for 60 moves, then you have to play 40
moves in 1:13. If it is Bronstein then it is even faster because you don't
get to save the unused portion of the 20 seconds.
>On the other hand, I do
>seem to recall Mephisto, some years back, organizing tournaments (or at
>least sponsoring them) in which it would throw its latest brainchild, in
>which it did quite well. Perhaps the solution would be to do something
>similiar? After all it (whichever program (and programmer) undertook
>this challenge) doesn't have to play against the top ten to be
>considered a valid result does it? Organize a cheap (if that's
>possible) 10 round IM tournament in which the program is the 11th player
>so that the players have a chance to score a norm from the 9 games
>between themselves and the tenth game (the program, not being officially
>rated, would not prejudice the players) would help establish once and
>for all the REAL TOURNAMENT rating of the said program.
Interesting idea. The program doesn't even have to appear in the
crosstable if you simply have a round robin tournament with an odd number
of humans. Each round there will be one human who does not have a game,
and in that round he plays an exhibition game against the program. Then
you just need to add some incentive for the humans to give it their best
game. This gets around the FIDE registration, because the program is not
officially part of the tournament, but you can still compute a rating for
the program as if it were in the round robin.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Mirabile <t...@mail.htp.com> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ |
| TimM on FICS - telnet://fics.onenet.net:5000/ PGP Key ID: B7CE30D1 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Hi Al,
I really was surprised to hear of that.
Well if the games are available in public anyway, I don't understand why
they don't make them available on threir webside.
This would shorten many discussions just by beeing able to look at facts
and prove them at home...
Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> schrieb im Beitrag
<326BE4...@netcom.ca>...
> mclane wrote:
> >snipped
>
> Dear mclane,
> The following was info provided in another post by
> Tony Hedlund.
> They ARE saving most of the games. And you can get them from the BBS
> Grottan
> at number: +46 31 992 301.
>
>
Robert Hyatt
Chris Whittington (chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >
I concur. I also blasted them for printing that. While I agree with Hans
that serious errors were made in Botvinnik's paper, it could/should have been
pointed out in a less vitrolic manner. I met Botvinnik and thought he was a
class act. If he screwed up badly in writing his last paper, I'd factor in
(a) his age, (b) his health, and (c) the fact that he was a former world
champion and that somehow deserves a certain respect from all of us that have
not "been there."
However, it's all history. Just that the ICCA *should not* publish such
rebuttals, although they probably shouldn't have published the original paper
either... without the necessary revisions. I'd suspect that their review
process might have been lacking back then, in their defense. If reviewers don't
catch errors, readers will... :)
Bob
Jonathan Schaeffer
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>Chris Whittington (chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: ste...@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Steven Rix) wrote:
>: >
As one of the people involved in the decision to publish this article, I
would like to make a few points:
1. The article that appeared in the ICCA Journal was a toned down version
of the original article that Hans posted to the net. We pointed out the
inflammatory parts of the article and gave some suggestions for "improving"
the wording. Hans did the final editing and the article was only pub-
lished after we felt that there was nothing libelous or incorrect in it.
2. I have known Hans a long time and he does not put up with any crap. Many
in the computer chess community have known that Botvinnik's work did not
stand up to scientific scrutiny, but we put up with it because, well,
Botvinnik was Botvinnik. No one criticized Botvinnik because of his rep-
utation. We all quietly humored him. But Hans...
3. If you ignore the personal remarks and study the evidence that Hans gave,
you can reach only one conclusion: Botvinnik forged his results. I hate
to say this so boldly and in a public forum, but the facts speak for them-
selves. Botvinnik may have had some good ideas, but the implementation
never met his expectations.
4. For many years there were attempts to get Botvinnik to give just *one*
exhibition of his work so that we could prove that there was something
behind it all. Nothing came of it. Tony Marsland and Monty Newborn
have been to Moscow many times and visited Botvinnik, but no one ever
saw anything. I myself was there in 1988 and was shown nothing.
There is no doubt that something was attempted. Some highly skilled people
did work on a chess program for Botvinnik. That is not a question. The
real issue is his "smart" search algorithm and the lack of a published
algorithm and verifiable results.
I was at Advances in Computer Chess in 1993 and heard Botvinnik talk. In
his speach he told us that we were all wrong; that we didn;t know the
right way to programs computers to play chess (maybe he's right!). He
then showed us "his way", with the usual result: nothing that could
be verified and the inevitable errors in his computer output. After 20
years of "research", surely we deserve better treatment.
As an aside...
There has never been a public exhibition of Botvinnik's software despite
numerous attempts. For example, when Tony Marsland and I organized the
1989 World Computer Chess Championship in Edmonton, we made Botvinnik an
offer that he couldn't refuse. Botvinnik claimed that all he needed was
a MC68020 processor and he would be World Computer Chess Champion. So
we offered to cover his expenses to Edmonton, gave him a faster machine
than he wanted, expenses for two weeks before the event so he could test
his program and the services of a programmer/analyst to help port and
debug his code. The offer was refused. The letter that came back was
angry with Tony (a long-time friend of his) because Botvinnik accused Tony
of trying to embarrass him.
Getting back to the article...
I went through every piece of Hans' evidence and found it to be correct. I
then looked through other Botvinnik material carefully and found the same
pattern: illegal moves, poor analysis, and impossible results. You can argue
that he may have made a few typos, but the pattern is too consistent to
disregard.
I may disagree with the way Hans tried to "expose" Botvinnik but, in the long
run, I think he did a service to the computer chess community. All too often
I hear people talking about Botvinnik's work as if it were the major result
in computer chess. This perception is because of Botvinnik's name, and little
else. Botvinnik's first book (Long Range Planning in Computer Chess) had some
good ideas in it. After that, I think everything else is a rehash with little
new.
I believe that Botvinnik either faked the results in his papers or edited the
output of his program to suit his needs. Of course, I can't prove it. However,
as a scientist he has the *obligation* to provide *some* answers about his
work. Since the mthods are secret and not repeatable, in my opinion then the
contribution is zero.
I find it difficult to write these words because I am a chess player and
admired Botvinnik as the great player that he was. He was known for the
science that he brought to the game. Would that he applied the same standards
to his computer chess career.
Walter Ravenek
In article <54jsag$q...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, jona...@cs.ualberta.ca
(Jonathan Schaeffer) wrote:
<snip>
> I find it difficult to write these words because I am a chess player and
> admired Botvinnik as the great player that he was. He was known for the
> science that he brought to the game. Would that he applied the same standards
> to his computer chess career.
Well said.
Walter Ravenek
--
Walter Ravenek
Peter W. Gillgasch
Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>
> >Chris Whittington (chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >: ste...@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Steven Rix) wrote:
> >: >
> >: > Didn't Hans Berliner write about this sort of thing in the first page
> >: > or two of his article about Botvinnik's "feats" in computer chess?
Book cooking to get CAPS to win versus MacHack ? Yes. Book cooking is an
old story. Will happen all the time.
> >: > You know, that article which he posted here a few years ago because
> >: > the major computer chess journal refused to touch it?
> >:
> >: If you mean the appalingly rude and vicious attack by Berliner
> >: against Botwinnik, shortly before Botwinnik's death ? It *was*
> >: published in the ICCA journal.
> >:
> >: I've not read a more unpleasant and nasty personal attack on anyone
> >: in a long time.
Sorry to disagree with you Chris, but I considered this article as
1. Absolutely correct
2. Totally fair since Botvinnik had 30 years before the verdict came in
3. Overdue since a long time
<FLAME PROTECTION LOCK>
This is no criticism of selective searching. Hans is into selective
searching as well, no faster/bigger metaphors needed here.
<END OF FRAME PROTECTION LOCK>
> >: I also thought, at the time, that the ICCA made a very serious
> >: error of judgement (to say the least) to contain such scurrilous,
> >: personal vindictiveness in what purports to be a scientific journal.
And I thought that everytime I saw something from or about Botvinnink
in that journal.
> >I concur. I also blasted them for printing that.
I disagree, Bob. Printing something like that was needed since a *long*
time. I think everybody that seriously is into computer chess
programming ows a big thanks to Hans for standing up and raising this
topic - Hans was well aware that he is doing something that will not
make him popular.
That is one of Hans's personal strengths which I admire.
> >While I agree with Hans
> >that serious errors were made in Botvinnik's paper, it could/should have been
> >pointed out in a less vitrolic manner.
Now hold it. We are not talking about a single paper which was littered
with errors. We are talking about someone who *cheated* himself and the
public over a period of a couple of decades.
If I say now that I have the fastest and/or strongest program on Earth
that creams Kasparov [but I will not show it to the world for, say, the
next 30 years] would you take me seriously ?
If I am a former world chess champion, then you probably would ?!
Isn't something grossly wrong with this community ?
> >I met Botvinnik and thought he was a
> >class act. If he screwed up badly in writing his last paper, I'd factor in
> >(a) his age, (b) his health, and (c) the fact that he was a former world
> >champion and that somehow deserves a certain respect from all of us that have
> >not "been there."
I strongly disagree.
Age ?
Deserves respect, certainly.
Health ?
Irrelevant in this context. We are talking about publishing papers.
His playing strength ?
Irrelevant in this context.
Example to illustrate this:
If Armstrong publishes that the moon is a green piece of cake when he is
70 and NASA invites him to speak at conferences, do you expect the
atrophysics community to believe him to be creditable ?
He is old, may be in bad health, was the first man on the moon, so
Hawkins is not allowed to say "bullshit" ?
> >However, it's all history. Just that the ICCA *should not* publish such
> >rebuttals, although they probably shouldn't have published the original paper
> >either... without the necessary revisions.
I agree on this one.
> I'd suspect that their review >process might have been lacking back then,
> in their defense. If reviewers don't >catch errors, readers will... :)
Well my guess is that Botvinnik could say anything he wanted since the
ICCA becomes blind and deaf as soon as a former world champion speaks
up.
> As one of the people involved in the decision to publish this article, I
> would like to make a few points:
>
> 1. The article that appeared in the ICCA Journal was a toned down version
> of the original article that Hans posted to the net. We pointed out the
> inflammatory parts of the article and gave some suggestions for
> "improving" the wording. Hans did the final editing and the article was
> only pub- lished after we felt that there was nothing libelous or
> incorrect in it.
I never had the impression that there is something wrong with the
article in the published form. If anybody has the origninal posting of
Hans I'd like to see it.
> 2. I have known Hans a long time and he does not put up with any crap.
> Many in the computer chess community have known that Botvinnik's work did
> not stand up to scientific scrutiny, but we put up with it because, well,
> Botvinnik was Botvinnik. No one criticized Botvinnik because of his rep-
> utation. We all quietly humored him. But Hans...
*Exactly*. Hans deserves credit for living up to his scientific claims.
Where has the remainder of the community been ?! Why was Botvinnik
invited as "honoured guest" at some ACC ?
> 3. If you ignore the personal remarks and study the evidence that Hans
> gave, you can reach only one conclusion: Botvinnik forged his results. I
> hate to say this so boldly and in a public forum, but the facts speak for
> them- selves. Botvinnik may have had some good ideas, but the
> implementation never met his expectations.
*Exactly*.
> 4. For many years there were attempts to get Botvinnik to give just *one*
> exhibition of his work so that we could prove that there was something
> behind it all. Nothing came of it. Tony Marsland and Monty Newborn have
> been to Moscow many times and visited Botvinnik, but no one ever saw
> anything. I myself was there in 1988 and was shown nothing.
Let me give you a short report of a lecture of Botvinnik at UKA, I think
it was in the summer of 1993. He talked a little, joked a little,
presented his 3 positions and said that Chess Computer Sapiens (AKA
Pioneer, but the Red Empire has imploded so the name was no longer
politcally correct and maybe would no longer attract the crowds with
such a name) solves all of them.
No explanations how it was done, most of the audience consisted of
strong chess players and some CS students, among them two guys who later
formed the DarkThought group with yours truly.
He was asked about the programming language, which was answered with
'C'. Can his group be contacted via email ? No. Can his program be
ftp'ed ? No since they are afraid of viruses (!).
I asked how he avoids the typical human tactical blunders if he does so
little search (in the order of 20 nodes (!)). Botvinnik and his company
were noticable *upset* by the question. Finally I got the following
answer:
"The blunders made by computers are much worse than the blunders by
humans."
<LONG SILENCE>
Please note what the question was. Was this guy a Zen buddhist or what?
After that I had to laugh a little (was chastizied by the chess playing
audience for doing so).
> There is no doubt that something was attempted. Some highly skilled
> people did work on a chess program for Botvinnik. That is not a
> question. The real issue is his "smart" search algorithm and the lack
> of a published algorithm and verifiable results.
"Smart" search algorithm ? It never existed, obviously.
> I was at Advances in Computer Chess in 1993 and heard Botvinnik talk.
> In his speach he told us that we were all wrong; that we didn;t know
> the right way to programs computers to play chess (maybe he's right!).
Yes, maybe he is right. But if you say "this is the wrong way", then you
better come up with something that is "the right way" or be quiet,
otherwise you are just counter-productive. Well, he wasn't exactly
quiet. I wonder how he managed to brainwash the whole community. Usually
you would stand up and leave the conference room to have a drink if such
a looser speaks, or ?!
Instead you invited hi again and again. I'll never understand this.
> He then showed us "his way", with the usual result: nothing that could
> be verified and the inevitable errors in his computer output. After 20
> years of "research", surely we deserve better treatment.
What do you mean by "showing his way" ? He showed you pretty much
nothing. The usual trick went like presenting a position, a small search
tree and the claim that this is all he needs.
For the better treatment, you got what you deserved. If I make something
up and you believed me for a decade, why should I not assume that you
*want* to be betrayed ?
> As an aside...
This is not an aside subject, this is the heart of the problem.
> There has never been a public exhibition of Botvinnik's software despite
> numerous attempts. For example, when Tony Marsland and I organized the
> 1989 World Computer Chess Championship in Edmonton, we made Botvinnik an
> offer that he couldn't refuse. Botvinnik claimed that all he needed was
> a MC68020 processor and he would be World Computer Chess Champion. So
> we offered to cover his expenses to Edmonton, gave him a faster machine
> than he wanted, expenses for two weeks before the event so he could test
> his program and the services of a programmer/analyst to help port and
> debug his code. The offer was refused. The letter that came back was
> angry with Tony (a long-time friend of his) because Botvinnik accused Tony
> of trying to embarrass him.
This says pretty much everything about it, doesn't it ?! First he says
that the community is on the wrong track, that he has found the holy
grail, you try hard to enable him to show it and then he says that you
want to *embarrass* him.
Don't you notice that this is clearly a religion like feature ? He has
the grail (dogma) you are a sinner (oh yes) but thou shalt not be
allowed for asking for proof, otherwise you fall from his grace.
And after you fell from grace you tried to regain it by inviting him
again, by publishing his papers, etc.
This community wanted to be cheated obviously.
> Getting back to the article...
>
> I went through every piece of Hans' evidence and found it to be correct. I
> then looked through other Botvinnik material carefully and found the same
> pattern: illegal moves, poor analysis, and impossible results. You can argue
> that he may have made a few typos, but the pattern is too consistent to
> disregard.
*Exactly*.
> I may disagree with the way Hans tried to "expose" Botvinnik but, in the long
> run, I think he did a service to the computer chess community. All too often
> I hear people talking about Botvinnik's work as if it were the major result
> in computer chess. This perception is because of Botvinnik's name, and little
> else.
Absolutely. Botvinnik's behaviour was nothing but insulting and I
question the ICCA why it was possible for this travesty to become nearly
an institution.
> Botvinnik's first book (Long Range Planning in Computer Chess) had some
> good ideas in it. After that, I think everything else is a rehash with little
> new.
I agree with that. LRPICC is interesting but never produced anything
that allowed to tackle the problem in an algorithmic sense.
> I believe that Botvinnik either faked the results in his papers or edited
> the output of his program to suit his needs. Of course, I can't prove it.
> However, as a scientist he has the *obligation* to provide *some* answers
> about his work. Since the mthods are secret and not repeatable, in my
> opinion then the contribution is zero.
Yes.
> I find it difficult to write these words because I am a chess player and
> admired Botvinnik as the great player that he was. He was known for the
> science that he brought to the game. Would that he applied the same
> standards to his computer chess career.
Well I have no difficulty at all to say that he was a crook who
brainwashed the scientific community and the ICCA. Everybody knew it and
at one point in time Hans stood up in the name of science.
He showed courage where the community, the ICCA and the board of the
ICCA has failed miserably.
If you forget any rivalry with Hitech you will have to admit that, no ?
-- Peter
Robert Hyatt
Jonathan Schaeffer (jona...@cs.ualberta.ca) wrote:
:
: As one of the people involved in the decision to publish this article, I
I wouldn't try to dispute any of the above, as I explained in what I wrote.
Just that such a strong personal attack seemed completely inappropriate for
a "journal". Technical attacks on data, yes. I felt (and still feel)
that (a) botvinnik was wrong for publishing what he did, and (b) Hans was
wrong for the too-personal flavor of the attack...
Nothing more, nothing less. It just left the wrong taste in my mouth after
reading it...
Bob
Robert Hyatt
Robert Hyatt (hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu) wrote:
: : contribution is zero.
: :
: : I find it difficult to write these words because I am a chess player and
: : admired Botvinnik as the great player that he was. He was known for the
: : science that he brought to the game. Would that he applied the same standards
: : to his computer chess career.
:
: I wouldn't try to dispute any of the above, as I explained in what I wrote.
: Just that such a strong personal attack seemed completely inappropriate for
: a "journal". Technical attacks on data, yes. I felt (and still feel)
: that (a) botvinnik was wrong for publishing what he did, and (b) Hans was
: wrong for the too-personal flavor of the attack...
:
: Nothing more, nothing less. It just left the wrong taste in my mouth after
: reading it...
:
: Bob
I should have maybe been clearer on where I stand here. For the record:
(1) I completely agree with Hans' critique of what Dr. Botvinnik published.
When I read that the first time, I didn't go over the analysis with the same
"critical eye" that Hans did, but I (like many) wondered "how can he trim away
this serious-looking move?" I also thought that someone that had been
promising great things for > 20 years should, at some point, deliver
*something* for us to evaluate. He never did, other than in written promises
like "the" ICCA paper.
(2) I simply didn't like the personal flavor of the attack Hans made. While
probably deserved, I wouldn't go so far as to accuse someone of fabrication
without some sort of evidence. I'd be willing to point out the flaws,
mistakes and incorrect statements, but I'd tend to not try to infer some
deep deceptive motive as the underlying cause of those statements. That was
my complaint. Not the technical merit of what either Botvinnik or Hans had to
say...
Chris Whittington
Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> Chris Whittington wrote:
> >
>
>
> Chris, you didn't take into account a different cultural understanding
> of humour and the smile character.
Given that Vincent has neither retracted nor apologised for his
last intervention (for which he was roundly condemned by many
posters), and that he continues to try and justify himself, despite
various attempts to put him right both privately and
publicly; I don't feel that his latest offering is any more
acceptable.
He can be offensive, or he can be offensive and add a smiley - makes
no difference.
Dickhead is as dickhead does.
Chris Whittington
Torstein Hall
>
> Given that Vincent has neither retracted nor apologised for his
> last intervention (for which he was roundly condemned by many
> posters), and that he continues to try and justify himself, despite
> various attempts to put him right both privately and
> publicly; I don't feel that his latest offering is any more
> acceptable.
>
> He can be offensive, or he can be offensive and add a smiley - makes
> no difference.
>
> Dickhead is as dickhead does.
>
> Chris Whittington
>
Why should anyone make an excuse to Chris Whittington or anyone else, for
having an oppinion?
If any need to come up with an excuse, its people starting name callings
like Dickhead and so on!
Please grow up MR. Whittington!
--
Torstein Hall (tors...@eunet.no)
Chess page: http://login.eunet.no/~torshall/sjakk.html
Homepage: http://login.eunet.no/~torshall/index.html
Marc-François Baudot
Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>
> I should have maybe been clearer on where I stand here. For the record:
>
> (1) I completely agree with Hans' critique of what Dr. Botvinnik published.
> When I read that the first time, I didn't go over the analysis with the same
> "critical eye" that Hans did, but I (like many) wondered "how can he trim away
> this serious-looking move?" I also thought that someone that had been
> promising great things for > 20 years should, at some point, deliver
> *something* for us to evaluate. He never did, other than in written promises
> like "the" ICCA paper.
>
> (2) I simply didn't like the personal flavor of the attack Hans made. While
> probably deserved, I wouldn't go so far as to accuse someone of fabrication
> without some sort of evidence. I'd be willing to point out the flaws,
> mistakes and incorrect statements, but I'd tend to not try to infer some
> deep deceptive motive as the underlying cause of those statements. That was
> my complaint. Not the technical merit of what either Botvinnik or Hans had to
> say...
Just to give some feedback on this matter to the ICCA and Hans Berliner, I
thought it was courageous of them to publish Hans's article, and that the
article itself was excellent. Botvinnik was a great chess player, no doubt,
and may have had some interesting ideas in computer chess at first,
but have you read that interview (by David Levy I believe) in an old issue of
the ICCA Journal where he keeps complaining but refuses any kind of help?
Have you attended a conference where Botvinnik more or less
explained he was clearly losing his time talking to such stupid people as his audience ?
You would have seen Hans' critique and its publication in the ICCA journal
as a healthy scientific reaction, not a personnal attack.
My own personal attack now :Botvinnik was known for using his power and reputation to his advantage,
and for not being the most respectful person in the chess world. I'm not a great admirer of his
"scientific style" in chess either. As joel Lautier likes to say in interviews "I was very much
impressed with Botvinnik's ability to plan so well and scientifically the whole game. Then when I
became stronger, I discovered it is just impossible to think in such a way during a game, and that
his explanations to his games were found only after the games were played. Unlike Capablanca who
never explained anything but played naturally good simple moves". There have been more interesting
strong chess players.
Marc-Francois
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Vincent Diepeveen <vdie...@cs.ruu.nl> schrieb im Beitrag
<54ik4l$b...@krant.cs.ruu.nl>...
> In <84597315...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> Chris Whittington
<chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> I agree with Chris: whole discussion about killerbooks sucks.
> Every GM has a killerbook. I recently lost again a game because of
> such a human killerbook. Some GM's Fiderating is based on killerbooks.
I neither agree with you nor with Chris:
I think the whole discussion about killer books sucks because people don't
stop making silly comparisons between human and computer book preparation.
The simple differnece is: the older top programs beeing cooked by Mchess
don't have *any* chance, because their play is completely determined by
book and engine.
And cooking them has *nothing* to do with human opening preparation but
with producing won middlegames in silent nights.
I really begin to hate the stupidity of the whole discussion
> Certain programmers will try to write a strong program, and others
> with a lot of talent, but at a certain point at their top will try
> to make a good book.
A good book and a cook book are not quite the same thing.
Perhaps you should read again my original posting?
> Ed Schroeder already uses many years Jeroen Noomen to write books
> for him. And HE is blaming another one (Marty Hirsch)
> for having a better book?
Yes!!! He is completely right in blaming cooking as completely unfair
(including his own 2.3 cooks)
> Of course killerbooks stinks,
Yes!!!
but it is REALITY.
Yes!!! But it is dirty reality, just like shooting someone down in a boxing
fight. It has *nothing* to do with computer chess. It only works because we
don't even have a couple of rules like in boxing!
>In Formula 1,
No!!! In Formula 1 you get 10 seconds if you start too soon or more if you
use the wrong equipment... Even they have rules!
>in buiseness,
only in primitive Manchester capitalism times of the last century we are
approching again rapidly
> in chess, and of course also in computerchess.
as long as we as users accept it... :-)))
> I don't understand however 1 thing: suppose my openingsbook is 1 million,
> picking randomly a move.
>
> How can you make a killerbook?
>
> At least a million year's work.
>
> You can of course write a killerbook, if the book of your opponent is
small.
> Now think of this: why would that book be so small.
> Because they want to play certain variations?
>
> Why?
Shurely!
Why should a program like Fritz2 have been playing Ruy Lopez with white?
:-)))
> Vincent Diepeveen
> vdie...@cs.ruu.nl
Sorry, if I am a bit sarcastic, but the way this discussion went really
went on my nerves... ;-)
Yours Dirk
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Kevin James Begley <kjbe...@chimi.engr.ucdavis.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
<54j3vp$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
> Dirk Frickenschmidt (di...@jimknopf.wupper.de) wrote:
> : 4) Killer books together with not killing doubles then lead to
comletely
> : distorted game results. In effect you don't get the results of engine
> : strength together with good books, but you get for a big part a human
> : database of cooked middlegame wins.
>
> If your program is dumb enough to lose twice via the same exact
> move order, a mistake not expected of a complete beginner, then
> you deserve to lose (in fact, I would argue the program that
> "cooked" you deserves a brilliancy prize!).
I'm not shure what I will regard as more dumb:
a) Having clean chess with a well prepared book on both sides and none of
the stupid book cooking or
b) dozens of stupid variations of the same opening played by machines with
a "learning" function (which should better be called roulette function
because chess programs leaving the book too early still often play silly
single moves instead of interesting plans)
My choice at least is clearly a)
> I don't see anything about "double-jeopardy" in the standard
> tournament rule book, why do some of you feel that your
> program should be entitled to such a provision? Just try to
> tell a TD that your last round loss should not count because
> you lost in the exact same manner in an earlier pairing with
> the same opponent. Better yet, tell the TD that you only
> lost because of your opponent's "killer book." Imagine if
> Anand had had made such a claim after round 10 of the PCA
> championship. I'm quite sure that when the TD finished laughing,
> he'd have reminded Anand, "THAT IS PART OF THE GAME!"
This is one more of the completely unreasonable comparison between humans
and prgs I talked about in other postings...
>Maybe,
> it's time a few of you programmers out there get this message.
...
> Kevin.
>
Yours Dirk
Chris Whittington
"Torstein Hall" <tors...@login.eunet.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > Given that Vincent has neither retracted nor apologised for his
> > last intervention (for which he was roundly condemned by many
> > posters), and that he continues to try and justify himself, despite
> > various attempts to put him right both privately and
> > publicly; I don't feel that his latest offering is any more
> > acceptable.
> >
> > He can be offensive, or he can be offensive and add a smiley - makes
> > no difference.
> >
> > Dickhead is as dickhead does.
> >
> > Chris Whittington
> >
> Why should anyone make an excuse to Chris Whittington or anyone else, for
> having an oppinion?
> If any need to come up with an excuse, its people starting name callings
> like Dickhead and so on!
> Please grow up MR. Whittington!
I suggest you read the various postings before making snap responses.
Nobody is flaming Vincent for his *opinion*.
I'm flaming him for his *actions* or *behaviours* and his
unnecessary rude and infantile abuse.
Case 1.
Vincent asked for and received a work in progress copy of CST in
order that 'he could use it to test his program, because he was a
poor student and coudln't afford to buy programs'
Later Vincent committed the sin of publicly attacking CST on this
user group. Its a sin because we don't pass comment on w-i-progress
programs. (a) its not ethical and (b) it would certainly put a stop
to the friendly sharing of programs that goes on.
This was an *action* or *behaviour* of Vincent, not an opinion.
Vincent has had private emails and postings on rgcc explaining the
situation. But he holds his original position, that he can say what
he wants. Possibly so, but he won't be getting anymore pre-release
material.
Case 2.
: CW:
: > >Kindly don't lump me together with other people again.
: >
: VD (jumps into thread):
: > Don't worry Chris we will not lump you together with other people,
: > we'll put you at the garbage... :)
: CW:
: I'm not usually blatantly rude to people, but in this case
: I think I can safely say that you, Vincent, are a dickhead.
Vincent's comments are unnecesary and infantile abuse, made worse by
the fact that he has not retracted his case 1. position.
In this case, I wouldn't devalue the word 'opinion' by elevating
Vincent's nonsense to be so defined. Pre-teen jibberish, yes, opinion,
no.
In such a case, I feel free to tell him what I think.
If you'ld like a translation of 'dickhead' here it is:
1. Somebody who does soemthing wrong. In this case betray an act
of friendliness - and then be unable to say, ok I was wrong.
2. Somebody who does something wrong, and rather that say ok I was
wrong, continues making silly jibes.
Chris Whittington
Don Fong
In article <01bbc120$9fa00800$0927...@mail.wupper.de>,
Dirk Frickenschmidt <di...@jimknopf.wupper.de> wrote:
>I think the whole discussion about killer books sucks because people don't
>stop making silly comparisons between human and computer book preparation.
>
>The simple differnece is: the older top programs beeing cooked by Mchess
>don't have *any* chance, because their play is completely determined by
>book and engine.
first, the fault is not with MCHESS for playing winning lines,
the fault is with the older programs for playing losing lines.
if they can't learn from their losses, then don't expect MCHESS or
any other opponent to give them a break. you don't expect progress
to stop just to "give the older programs a chance", do you?
>And cooking them has *nothing* to do with human opening preparation but
>with producing won middlegames in silent nights.
cooking is a time-honored tradition in human matches.
>I really begin to hate the stupidity of the whole discussion
i think it's a great discussion.
[...]
>Yes!!! But it is dirty reality, just like shooting someone down in a boxing
>fight. It has *nothing* to do with computer chess. It only works because we
>don't even have a couple of rules like in boxing!
in boxing, the old guys have to retire after awhile.
they don't ask the young guys to pull their punches to
"give them a chance".
--
don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
Torstein Hall
Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<84616293...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>...
I have to admit that I had not followed the complete thread, only Vincent's
last posting on killer books, whish looked like an reasonable view on
killer books.
So please excuse me if I have jumped to conclusions on the last 2-3
postings in the thread!
If you are right in that he made remarks on CST in public with a beta
version of it, I very much understand your rage. (even if you do your self
no good, in calling people "Dickheads")
So again, excuse me!
Albert Silver
Tim Mirabile wrote:
>
> Albert Silver <ka...@embratel.net.br> wrote:
>
> >> - Aegon time controls: 1:30 for the game + 0:20 for every move is very
> >> good for humans. Especially the extra 20 seconds is a huge advantage to
> >> humans since they can avoid lots of losses by time control.
> >the players DO end up with an average of 30 seconds a move (I'm
> >generously counting 20 moves of instantaneous opening theory for this
> >figure)
since what understood was that players had 1 MINUTE and 30 seconds plus
20 seconds a move. So much for my delusions of intellectual grandeur.
> Interesting idea. The program doesn't even have to appear in the
> crosstable if you simply have a round robin tournament with an odd number
> of humans. Each round there will be one human who does not have a game,
> and in that round he plays an exhibition game against the program. Then
> you just need to add some incentive for the humans to give it their best
> game. This gets around the FIDE registration, because the program is not
> officially part of the tournament, but you can still compute a rating for
> the program as if it were in the round robin.
On a further note, Mephisto also organized in Paris a special
evaluation event for the Mephisto Lyon 68020 (when it first came out)
in which it challenged some 20 players (I don't remember exactly how
many) rated nationally between 1800 and 2200 to two games at 40/2h
playing once with White and once with Black. The players were awarded
200 FF for a win and 100 FF for a draw. Of course, with today's programs
boasting ratings of 2400 and more (on a Pentium), this would probably be
more difficult to organize, and the incentive might have to be larger.
Albert Silver
Ralf W. Stephan
Jonathan Schaeffer writes:
> As one of the people involved in the decision to publish this article, I
> would like to make a few points:
Thanks for this interesting and informative article.
ralf
--
Lynx-enhanced pages at http://www.bayreuth-online.de/~stephan
Robert Hyatt
Dirk Frickenschmidt (di...@jimknopf.wupper.de) wrote:
:
:
:
: I neither agree with you nor with Chris:
: I think the whole discussion about killer books sucks because people don't
: stop making silly comparisons between human and computer book preparation.
:
: The simple differnece is: the older top programs beeing cooked by Mchess
: don't have *any* chance, because their play is completely determined by
: book and engine.
: with producing won middlegames in silent nights.
: I really begin to hate the stupidity of the whole discussion
:
: A good book and a cook book are not quite the same thing.
: Perhaps you should read again my original posting?
: Yes!!! He is completely right in blaming cooking as completely unfair
: (including his own 2.3 cooks)
:
: Yes!!! But it is dirty reality, just like shooting someone down in a boxing
: fight. It has *nothing* to do with computer chess. It only works because we
: don't even have a couple of rules like in boxing!
I see two possibilities here:
1. a programmer takes his new program, pits it against an old program,
cooks the book, with the sole intent of moving up the SSDF list because
he "knows" that old program is still being tested.
2. a programmer lets his program learn how to beat a contemporary program
for much the same reason, which may or may not be o.k. However, in doing
this, it's just possible that he's also learning how to toast older versions
of this program if the book has not been modified much.
In case #2, I wouldn't be so concerned, in that it is likely that older
programs should be removed from the testing cycle when a newer version comes
out, to avoid this. In case #1, it would be a questionable practice, because
the only possible benefit would be to beat older programs and win rating points,
something that would *only* happen on the SSDF anyway.
Bruce Moreland and I have discussed this many times, and have basically "promised"
each other that we aren't going to "cook" although it would be simple to do. In
the case of Crafty, it will be interesting to see how the SSDF testing goes, since
it will likely get cooked as well, if this is really going on. The only counter-
measure I employ is that the big book I use for Crafty is not the large book on
the ftp machine. It's not anything particularly "special" in that it is just a
collection of GM games, but it's a "different" collection with different win/loss
totals, so it will play differently than those using the released book. This will
make it harder to cook its book, but not impossible since it plays 20-30 games
per day against Genius 4, Fritz, CM5000, Rebel8, etc on the server...
In any case, "counter-measures" are required for any computer chess tournament,
otherwise you take a big risk. My counter-measures are electronic in nature,
not something I cook up by hand. (ex, Ruy Lopez, "crafty variation")... :)
However, an another related topic, ICC is also encouraging this stuff, because there
are so many copies of all the programs there. The human operators are forcing the
computers to play certain openings, tweaking with various parameters to tune the
programs against certain opponents, etc. If you want your program to look good, one
good way is to make sure you get good opening positions. That's a reasonable goal.
If not taken "too" far. How far "too far" is, is certainly open to debate.
john quill taylor
jqta...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (john quill taylor) wrote:
>mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote:
>>...
>>Any comments?!
>What a wonderful article you have written! You make
>many excellent points. I really like the style of
>your writing. There is a chess book written in this
>style (the title and author escape me at the moment)
>that contains the same "German thought process expressed
>in English"; anyway, I have the book at home and you
>reminded me of it.
Of course the book is Emanuel Lasker's _Manual Of Chess_
printed in 1947 and reprinted in 1960.
__
john quill taylor / /\
writer at large / / \
Hewlett-Packard, Storage Systems Division __ /_/ /\ \
Boise, Idaho U.S.A. /_/\ __\ \ \_\ \
e-mail: jqta...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com \ \ \/ /\\ \ \/ /
Telephone: (208) 396-2328 (MDT = GMT - 6) \ \ \/ \\ \ /
Snail Mail: Hewlett-Packard \ \ /\ \\ \ \
11413 Chinden Blvd \ \ \ \ \\ \ \
Boise, Idaho 83714 \ \ \_\/ \ \ \
Mailstop 852 \ \ \ \_\/
\_\/
"When in doubt, do as doubters do." - jqt -
haiti, rwanda, cuba, bosnia, ... we have a list,
where is our schindler?
Steffen A. Jakob
Hi all!
Here is my opinion about cooking opening books:
Actually I don't care if program X wins 99% of all matches against
program Y because of a cooked book, because I won't by both programs
and spend my time with watching them play against each other.
The only problem for me is, that cooked books make it hard to compute
a rating for computer programs. Therefore I make the suggestion, that
there should be two different rating lists for computer chess
programs:
1) programs play normal chess with opening books.
2) programs play fisher random. Then the opening book is useless and
the rating would only say something about the engine.
The combination of both ratings would give a good impression about the
"real" strength. If the (1)-level is much lower than the (2)-rating
this would be an indication that the program uses a cooked book, WHICH
MIGHT BE OK FOR A LOT OF CUSTOMERS. Otherwise, if people want a strong
engine for analysing their own matches etc. they could look at the
(2)-list.
BTW: I wrote/write and alternative opening book for Crafty which
contains a lot of gambits like the following 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3
Nf6 4.Nxe5. I analysed this line very deeply and my Crafty-Clone
("Brause") won with this line e.g. two times against Lonnie at A-FICS,
although "normally" Brause (2250) wouldnt have any chance against
Lonnie (2800). So, you can say I have a cooked book. But: this wasn't
my intention! I just want to analyse this line as deep as possible. I
even dont have the programs which e.g. Lonnie uses to test my
analysis.
Best wishes,
Steffen.
--
Steffen A. Jakob |"Sorgfaeltige Planung ist der
s...@gams.at | Schluessel zu einem sicheren und
+43 1 8176230-12 | zuegigen Reiseverlauf"
http://www.gams.at/~saj/ |(Odysseus)
Robert Hyatt
Rolf W. Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
:
: > Technical attacks on data, yes. I felt (and still feel)
: >that (a) botvinnik was wrong for publishing what he did, and (b) Hans was
: >wrong for the too-personal flavor of the attack...
:
: >Nothing more, nothing less. It just left the wrong taste in my mouth after
: >reading it...
:
: >Bob
:
: Could someone mail me or post the original article of Hans Berliner
: please?
I can't post it because it's in an ICCA journal which is copyrighted, and
I don't have ASCII text anyway...
:
: I read sort of traduction in german CSS.
: If I remember right H.B. did not prove without any doubt that M.B. did
: fake all as *Potemkin villages*. And in my understanding without this
: proof Botvinnik should not be finally judged.
Hans convinced me that his analysis was correct and Botvinnik was wrong and
made lots of errors. That's not at issue with me. Just that Hans let his
comments get pretty personal and accusatory. I understand his motive, and
his strong feelings, but Hans and I are two different people and react
differently to things. That being said, I would have been gentler. Of
course, it still doesn't excuse Dr. Botvinnik's sloppy presentation.
:
: Perhaps he would have told more about *reality* himself if only he had
: some more years. All events before '89 have to be analysed under other
: criteria. But sputnik was not bad calculation at all ...
:
: I for my part would be happy never to be *on the horns of a dilemma*
: like this in my life.
:
: Therefore I like Bob's more complex view.
:
: Rolf Tueschen
:
Rolf W. Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
> Technical attacks on data, yes. I felt (and still feel)
>that (a) botvinnik was wrong for publishing what he did, and (b) Hans was
>wrong for the too-personal flavor of the attack...
>Nothing more, nothing less. It just left the wrong taste in my mouth after
>reading it...
>Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could someone mail me or post the original article of Hans Berliner
please?
I read sort of traduction in german CSS.
If I remember right H.B. did not prove without any doubt that M.B. did
fake all as *Potemkin villages*. And in my understanding without this
proof Botvinnik should not be finally judged.
Perhaps he would have told more about *reality* himself if only he had
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Hi Don,
Don Fong <df...@cse.ucsc.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
<54o7e1$8...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>...
> In article <01bbc120$9fa00800$0927...@mail.wupper.de>,
> Dirk Frickenschmidt <di...@jimknopf.wupper.de> wrote:
> >I think the whole discussion about killer books sucks because people
don't
> >stop making silly comparisons between human and computer book
preparation.
> >
> >The simple differnece is: the older top programs beeing cooked by Mchess
> >don't have *any* chance, because their play is completely determined by
> >book and engine.
>
> first, the fault is not with MCHESS for playing winning lines,
> the fault is with the older programs for playing losing lines.
> if they can't learn from their losses, then don't expect MCHESS or
> any other opponent to give them a break. you don't expect progress
> to stop just to "give the older programs a chance", do you?
No.
Cooking books is *no* progress at all. It's only a stupid way of cheating.
The points against older programs are not won by engine strength or a well
done book.
They are simply done by performing human middlegame wins gained by human
long term analysis.
I would regard people who do this as childish, and only nod, if they would
not gain reputation and financial profit from doing so.
> >And cooking them has *nothing* to do with human opening preparation but
> >with producing won middlegames in silent nights.
>
> cooking is a time-honored tradition in human matches.
Again and again: there is *nothing* in common bewteen human and computer
opening preparation concerning cooking.
Even human "learning" books have not much in common with human learning.
So this whole kind of comparison leads nowhere and is simply missing the
point...
> >I really begin to hate the stupidity of the whole discussion
>
> i think it's a great discussion.
Seems so :-)))
> [...]
> >Yes!!! But it is dirty reality, just like shooting someone down in a
boxing
> >fight. It has *nothing* to do with computer chess. It only works because
we
> >don't even have a couple of rules like in boxing!
>
> in boxing, the old guys have to retire after awhile.
> they don't ask the young guys to pull their punches to
> "give them a chance".
In boxing, no champion gets points by knocking out grandpas. ;-)
And even the grandpas in boxing could do much more than the old programs.
And in reality the prgs we are talking of are neither too old nor weak and
one or the other of them is playing chess at least as good as Mchess 5,
like Genius 3. They are simply cheated ...
So we have nothing more than another useless comparison between computers
and humans.
All this does not make cook cheating even a bit honorable!
So in my eyes it keeps beeing what I regard it is: simply childish and
digusting...
And not wanting to hurt you, I still have to ask: if your ethics are really
like those concerning computer chess cheating, how in the world you want to
get peace dividends in other areas of life???
> --
> don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
Yours Dirk
Anders Thulin
In article <01bbbfac$8e9489c0$0927...@mail.wupper.de>,
Dirk Frickenschmidt <di...@jimknopf.wupper.de> wrote:
>In any sport, winning is bound to the ethics of rules.
>"Winning" a boxing fight by shooting down the other boxer is no win, or is
>it for you?
Boxing rules describe how boxing should be performed. Shooting
doesn't fall within that area in any interpretation. Hence it is a
forbidden action -- just like illegal moves in chess.
Since we're talking computer chess here: what rules do killer books
break? None, as far as I can find. Please quote chapter and verse if
you have another opinion.
>So winning "anyhow" seems not to be an acceptable idea to me.
Why not?
I'm trying to steer this subject away from personal opinions and
prejudices. For that reason I don't accept arguments saying simply 'I
don't like it'. Please explaing *why* it is not acceptable. So far I
can't find anyone in this thread who has made the attempt. (I hope I
haven't missed any -- the thread is getting larger than usual...)
>century attractive... Winning without rules to me is nothing else but
>nonsense: in any area of life.
I don't know how to interpret that. There are rules for chess, and
there are also rules for computer chess, none of which mentions book
preparation or killer books as something that is forbidden or eben to
be frowned upon.
On the contrary, it rather seems that 'killing double games' is the
practice that needs be backed up by a rule, without which you seem to
consider actions as barbarisms. Or did I misinterpret you?
>Have you ever thought about the reason why they normally don't let
>wrestlers fight judo experts ?
Yes - two different sports, with different rules. Analogically, it
seems that computer chess ratings should be divided into two areas:
chess engines and chess programs -- wrestling and judo. Yet what is
being proposed is to outlaw judo, on what appears to be arguments
about the purity of it.
---
The complaint, somewhat simplified, is: killer books give inflated
ratings, which give top positions on the SSDF list, which fool
customers into believing those programs are better, which makes them
buy programs that don't match FIDE ratings. Which, in turn, forces
other chess programemrs into creating killer books to keep up their
ratings, which makes them spend less time on their chess engines.
That's bad. So let's forbid killer books.
I dispute the conclusion.
Why does the killer books work in the first place? Simply because
there are weaknesses that can be exploited in the programs. No
weakness to exploit, no killer book.
Does killer book give inflated ratings? Only on the assumption that
ratings are something else than what the Elo rating system produces --
a system based on the premise that a win is always a win, and under no
circumstances anything else. The chess engine people seem to believe
that only some wins are real, which of cause raises the question if
the Elo system is the right one to use.
As to customer assumption, I suggest the best action would be for
chess programmers to educate their market as well as their sales
people/representatives appropriately. That also goes for the
countering the assumption that SSDF ratings and FIDE ratings are in
some general way comparable.
Chess programmers who want to keep up with the rat race don't
necessarily have to create killer books themselves. It is, as already
observed, enough to repair their defenses so that the killer books
stop working.
--
Anders Thulin Anders...@lejonet.se 013 - 23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
Chris Whittington
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf W. Tueschen) wrote:
>
> hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>
> >that (a) botvinnik was wrong for publishing what he did, and (b) Hans was
> >wrong for the too-personal flavor of the attack...
>
> >Nothing more, nothing less. It just left the wrong taste in my mouth after
> >reading it...
>
> >Bob
>
> Could someone mail me or post the original article of Hans Berliner
> please?
The article is too long for me to type in, but to give a flavour
of the kind of commetns made, heer is part of the 'conclusion':
Berliner in ICCA journal:
"If I were Botwinnik I would be ashamed of myself. I hope that when
I get to his age, I will have enough good sense to know what I am
capable of and what I am not, and leave the latter alone. To try and
convince others that you are what you are not, is unbecoming of
a World Class person. ......... Botvinnik is not a meaningful
person in the field of computer chess, and if he wishes to comment on
this field, he should make it clear that it is the comments of a chess
player not a computer person.
I also wish to take issue with the editors of the ICCA journal ....."
My concern with this article is not the scientific content, nor the
reasoned critique of Botwinnik, but the use of such personal
and emotional language in what purports to be a scientific journal.
Attack Botwinnik's ideas - fine. But his person, not fine.
Botwinnik died shortly afterwards.
Berliner and the ICCA publishers should be ashamed of themselves.
Chris Whittington
Simon Read
I've just had a look at Mikhail Botvinnik's article "Solving Shannon's
Problem - Ways and Means" in the 7th ICCA conference proceedings. There
are 3 authors besides Botvinnik. There is also an "Igor Botvinnik"
credited with translating the paper. Perhaps these people have read the
ICCA journal article and are in a position to comment.
Simon
Moritz Berger
I'm posting this on behalf of Thorsten (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) who has
technical problems with his news server. I do not neccessarily agree with
him, so please flame him, not me:
Yes, we should forbid killer books,
and selling of weapons into 3rd world-countrys and
we should forbid raping of women, and we should forbid
marketing-lies and we should forbid capaigns against
people because the launcher-has-commercial-interests,
yes we should forbid championships take place in jakarta
and we should forbid cancellor kohl flying to jakarta
and selling them new weapons.
But when we forbid it, nothing will change, because liars
are not interested in laws.
Kohl will sell his weapons into jakarta although we don't like
it and it is forbidden.
And we cannot forbid to use killer books.
Programs have to learn to handle this situations!
So like we have to learn to handle Helmut Kohl.
If it would be possible to change the world by
forbidding immoral things, I would forbid Kohl,
... äh -- and killer books.
But it is not possible.
Thats the reason computerchess knows killerbooks
since the first chess-computers were developed
and this discussion will not stop anybody from
breaking laws, rules or morals.
Ok - let's forbid stupid questions and stupid answers!
Lets forbid the devil!
Moritz Berger
Again, I post this of behalf of Thosten (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de):
or Lasker who played psychologic-chess. When will computers
play like Lasker?
Maybe we can ask Igor Botvinnik if there is a program that plays
chess that is from botvinnik or if this program is just fantasy
and died with botvinnik's mind.
It was a fault to publish an article that throws mud against Botvinnik,
and it was another fault to publish this article again
in Computer-Schach + Spiele.
It was very funny how Frederic Friedel did CHANGED HIS
WRITING OPINION ABOUT BOTVINNIK after Botvinnik was dead.
Suddenly Botvinnik was a great man, and and and.
If there are stones in heaven, Botvinnik will throw a big
stone on friedel, if there are stones!
I am looking forward to the day when frederic
friedel or Hans Berliner will met Botvinnik
in heaven. But this will never happen.
You know why?
Moritz Berger
I'm posting this on behalf of Thorsten (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de). I don't
agree with him, but here it goes:
>
>
> Vincent Diepeveen <vdie...@cs.ruu.nl> schrieb im Beitrag
> <54ik4l$b...@krant.cs.ruu.nl>...
> > In <84597315...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> Chris Whittington
> <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > I agree with Chris: whole discussion about killerbooks sucks.
> > Every GM has a killerbook. I recently lost again a game because of
> > such a human killerbook. Some GM's Fiderating is based on killerbooks.
>
don't
> stop making silly comparisons between human and computer book
preparation.
>
If a human prepars against another human, this is ok, or professionally.
But if a chess-program prepares against another chess-program,
this is NOT OK ??
AND IT IS NOT professionally???
There is no difference between human-opening-book-preparation and
programs having cooked-books despite from the fact that humans can
forget lines and computers only when I pour orange-juice over them.
What is a silly comparison Dirk? Silly is that Mchess is blamed because
of something, a human would get compliments for.
> The simple differnece is: the older top programs beeing cooked by Mchess
> don't have *any* chance, because their play is completely determined by
> book and engine.
That is not very intelligent.
My grandpa has the same problem in changing DETERMINATED ideas!
I don't know what determines his mind, but he has sometimes strange
ideas when talkking about the second world-war!
An intelligent effort should not replay the same lost games over
and over again.
A stupid program or an old one will replay the loss again and again.
my grandpa repeats his prejudices against foreigners and his
strange views of WE DID NOT START THE WAR, WE JUST DEFENDED US AGAINST
THE OTHER COUNTRIES because he is old.
> And cooking them has *nothing* to do with human opening preparation but
> with producing won middlegames in silent nights.
Silent nights?! Sounds forbidden !! Again you try to convince us that
something that is pretty normal when a human does it, is forbidden
in computer chess.
>
> I really begin to hate the stupidity of the whole discussion
>
Me too!!
But still I think we have not the same point of view.
> > Certain programmers will try to write a strong program, and others
> > with a lot of talent, but at a certain point at their top will try
> > to make a good book.
>
> A good book and a cook book are not quite the same thing.
> Perhaps you should read again my original posting?
>
> > Ed Schroeder already uses many years Jeroen Noomen to write books
> > for him. And HE is blaming another one (Marty Hirsch)
> > for having a better book?
>
> Yes!!! He is completely right in blaming cooking as completely unfair
> (including his own 2.3 cooks)
>
He is not completely right in blaming cooking as completeley unfair.
As I told you, I am having a cooked opening book,
I am playing 1.d4 and winning with the trap:
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 !!
Because my opponents are somehow totally
determined by EATING and MATERIAL they normally lose with black.
Now: is this immoral?!
>
> > Of course killerbooks stinks,
> Yes!!!
>
> but it is REALITY.
> Yes!!! But it is dirty reality, just like shooting someone down in a
boxing
> fight. It has *nothing* to do with computer chess. It only works because
we
> don't even have a couple of rules like in boxing!
>
I guess the difference between boxing and chess is, that boxing is not
a sport, but an immoral behaviour, determined by old-genetic agression,
generated by an engine in some parts of the brain!
Since 1979 I studied computer-chess.
I remember that the old chess-computers had nice Killerbooks.
Some were even cheating!!!
Mark V from David Levy (I think we know the guy, see Jakarta-Files)
did as if it is computing although the move was played out of book.
Also it used a very strong killer opening:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7!!
Super-Constellation had a nice killer-opening-book with lines that
ended into mate, and Fidelity Excellence had nice lines against
Super-Constellation.
Also these poor EPROM-Machines were unable to change their
opening - books, so that the predessessors had a very easy
cooking in SILENT NIGHTS (Christmas???).
But nobody was blamed!
And the swedish guys did nothing against it.
But know Marty Hirsch is the one who is to blame for
all killer-books in the long history of computer-chess.
This is a poor thing.
>
>
>
> >In Formula 1,
> No!!! In Formula 1 you get 10 seconds if you start too soon or more if
you
> use the wrong equipment... Even they have rules!
>
> >in buiseness,
>
> only in primitive Manchester capitalism times of the last century we are
> approching again rapidly
>
> > in chess, and of course also in computerchess.
>
> as long as we as users accept it... :-)))
>
Customers shall not accept killer-books, but they accept Kohl
selling weapons in Jakarta!!
AHA! Seems that you have strange moralitys.
> > I don't understand however 1 thing: suppose my openingsbook is 1
million,
> > picking randomly a move.
> >
> > How can you make a killerbook?
> >
> > At least a million year's work.
> >
> > You can of course write a killerbook, if the book of your opponent is
> small.
> > Now think of this: why would that book be so small.
> > Because they want to play certain variations?
> >
> > Why?
> Shurely!
> Why should a program like Fritz2 have been playing Ruy Lopez with white?
> :-)))
>
>
> > Vincent Diepeveen
> > vdie...@cs.ruu.nl
>
>
> Sorry, if I am a bit sarcastic, but the way this discussion went really
> went on my nerves... ;-)
>
> Yours Dirk
If I am having a book that consists of all games played by humans in
history,
and also of all computer-games known and published so far,
is this immoral to play moves out of it ??
Maybe we should really play Fischer-shuffle chess instead.
That would be very complicate for ChessBase, would'nt it ?
brucemo
Hans originally posted something on here to the effect that he'd written
something about Botvinnik, and that the ICCA had refused to publish it,
and that if anyone would like to see it, please email him, so I did.
His article was pretty violent, but I enjoyed it. I didn't know enough
to know if it was true or not, but it was in line with my suspicions. I
had been wondering about the existence of Botvinnik's program -- you can
only fiddle with chess programs for so long before you take the plunge
and write something that can play a complete game, at which point the
strength or weakness of the program begins to provide concrete evidence
of the quality of your ideas and of your implementation. It doesn't
necessarily even matter if the program plays like crap most of the time,
all you'd need is one position, in the context of a real game, where the
program has some insight that can be proven to be something other than
pure randomness, to show that there is SOME validity in an approach.
Whenever anyone claims to have come up with something earth-shattering in
the computer chess field, the correct response is an immediate, "Let's
play a few games." If they balk at this, you know how to regard them.
Last I heard a relative of Botvinnik was trying to attract funds to
continue this research, thereby turning this project into a
multi-generational scam. You gotta wonder in what decade they'll produce
something that will play a complete game, this MUST hold some sort of
record for duration of time in the "vaporware" state.
bruce
Chris Whittington
"Moritz Berger" <ber...@zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
>
> Again, I post this of behalf of Thosten (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de):
> > Robert Hyatt wrote:
> > >
> > >
Moritz, surely you're not suggesting Herr Friedel will go to hell ? :)
Will he meet the board of the ICCA there too ?
Surely not :)
Chris Whittington
Rolf Tueschen
Technical question
------------------------------
I am writing on a scientific :) analysis of the basic point of E.
Schroder Inc. Along my results this thread will enter history as one
of the smartest PR actions the world has ever known and surely the
first real interactive multi-cultural and multi-logical one.
I read all articles but I remember one with the melody *guys, guys,
guys*. Somewhere it is quoted as if coming from Chris W.
But I always thought of another author.
Any hints about this post and date?
atomicDynamo???????????????????
?????????????
777777777
7777777777777-
-----Whether? No weather. Ah. Sunny. Maybe. But there is war.
I know'd. Thou' Bumble. (Shakespeare.)
Simon Read
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf W. Tueschen) wrote:
>Could someone mail me or post the original article of Hans Berliner
>please?
>
For your information, the English word you are looking for is
"translation". Unfortunately "traduction" does not exist, although
there is a very similar word in French.
Regards
Simon
Moritz Berger
> > >
> > > I agree with Chris: whole discussion about killerbooks sucks.
> > > Every GM has a killerbook. I recently lost again a game because of
> > > such a human killerbook. Some GM's Fiderating is based on
killerbooks.
> >
> > I neither agree with you nor with Chris:
> > I think the whole discussion about killer books sucks because people
> don't
> > stop making silly comparisons between human and computer book
> preparation.
> >
>
> If a human prepars against another human, this is ok, or professionally.
> But if a chess-program prepares against another chess-program,
> this is NOT OK ??
> AND IT IS NOT professionally???
>
> There is no difference between human-opening-book-preparation and
> programs having cooked-books despite from the fact that humans can
> forget lines and computers only when I pour orange-juice over them.
> What is a silly comparison Dirk? Silly is that Mchess is blamed because
> of something, a human would get compliments for.
Somebody sent me an email with a very good argument that I will try to
paraphrase in English:
Imagine that you kidnap Kasparov, play thousands of games against him, test
your openings against him, find out how to beat him (just imagine that all
other top 10 players will help you with this task). Build your own killer
knowledge about him and take as much time as you need for this. Now erase
all memory about this from his brain.
Now you defeat Garry in a public match. You know what he will play and how
he reasons, but he doesn't know about your "special" preparation.
Do you consider this a fair match? Would you still consider this even to be
a game of chess for other reasons than the mere adherence to the rules that
govern the behaviour of the pieces?
If you play against humans, you can of course learn from earlier games (and
mistakes) of your opponent, but your opponent also has the possibility to
learn from his losses. The equivalent of computer killer books would be if
you deprieved him of this possibility to learn and could even anticipate
his learning because you had him trying to learn from the same mistake
before and you know exactly how he will try to improve!
Killer books get "cooked" in private kitchens, the opponents don't have a
chance to learn from their mistakes because the versions at the SSDF don't
know about this secret torture. Much worse: their wins against the "cooked"
program get anihilated by the book and will never be counted by the SSDF.
--
-------------
Moritz Berger
ber...@zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de
Anders Thulin
In article <01bbc452$e3aabb00$71e0...@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>,
Moritz Berger <ber...@zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
>I'm posting this on behalf of Thorsten (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) who has
>technical problems with his news server. I do not neccessarily agree with
>him, so please flame him, not me:
I wrote the '>' text in the posted text ('>>'below), Dirk
Frickenschmidt wrote the '> >' text ('>> >'below). For some reason
my name was dropped from the attributions.
>> In article <01bbbfac$8e9489c0$0927...@mail.wupper.de>,
>> Dirk Frickenschmidt <di...@jimknopf.wupper.de> wrote:
>>
>> >In any sport, winning is bound to the ethics of rules.
>> >"Winning" a boxing fight by shooting down the other boxer is no win, or
>is
>> >it for you?
>>
>> Boxing rules describe how boxing should be performed. Shooting
>> doesn't fall within that area in any interpretation. Hence it is a
>> forbidden action -- just like illegal moves in chess. [...]
[Snip. No need to quote the rest - it's in the thread.]
Steven Rix
In article <54rbgl$d...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>, hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu
(Robert Hyatt) writes:
->
->Hans convinced me that his analysis was correct and Botvinnik was wrong and
->made lots of errors. That's not at issue with me. Just that Hans let his
->comments get pretty personal and accusatory. I understand his motive, and
->his strong feelings, but Hans and I are two different people and react
->differently to things. That being said, I would have been gentler.
That's how I remember the article. When it was posted to r.g.c a
few years ago, Hans was adamant that he wouldn't change his article
significantly and said that a major rewrite had been requested.
I, err, sensed that he felt strongly about the issue! Obviously one
side must have backed down a bit or else they agreed on some sort of
compromise...
Hmm. I wish I hadn't mentioned the issue at all the other week! The
discussion wondered away from what I was trying to ask, which was:
could MChess's amazing opening book have been produced by it learning
how to beat its rivals, rather than its programmers sitting down and
working everything out by hand?
Ho hum, that's Usenet for you.
--
Steve Rix
S....@ed.ac.uk http://www.chemeng.ed.ac.uk/people/steve/
Jouni Uski
It seems, that Botvinnik was abusing the unsuspecting computer
chess community over 10 years!! Only Friedel's article in
CSS told the truth to me...
Jouni
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de
In article <3276F7...@nce.nokia.com>, Jouni Uski <Jouni...@nce.nokia.com>
writes:
"Friedel's article in CSS told the truth" to you ??
Oh man, it seems you don't know Frederic in personal!
There is very rare TRUTH in the Computer-Schach & Spiele.
The quantity of INFORMATION reduces itself from edition to edition
and goes near to almost sero (= 0 ).
The reason is:
Computer Schach and Spiele has only one destination:
Desinformation.
The reason for that:
Make money out of lies!
They adress to stupid readers (they tell that to anybody
who ask them for) and are always trying to "reduce the
understanding-level to the IQ-level of the readers.
This is, of course, their claim. And their intention.
They want to decrease the level, they think that their reader are stupid,
therefore they desinform the people and always stress:
we have to reduce the level in the computer-schach & spiele.
We have to reduce it.
They do! You can be sure: They will reduce it in future.
They call this desinformation: journalism.
I know many people who tried to write letters to them, and
the letters were not published and they got no answers
from the PUBLISHERS.
The reader-letters and the articles are censored.
Why do the publishers do this?
Because they have commercial interests.
This is not jounalism, this is ADVERTISING.
Computer Schach & Spiele is not NEWS, it is
pure advertising and the bad thing about this is not
that the people pay money to get the magazine, although it is advertising,
the bad thing of this is:
the publishers believe their readers are stupid!
Alan J. Robinson
ref: H.J. Berliner. Playing Computer Chess in the Human Style. ICCA
Journal 16(3): 176-182. Sept 1993.
I've been doing some background reading of the literature on heuristic
search, and it appears that there may be actually be some real
progress taking place here, some of it directly inspired by
Botvinnik's work on computer chess. I refer to Boris Stilman's
"Linguistic Geometry" and Glover's Tabu search. (Info on both is
available on the Web - also check "taboo" search.)
As has been found it is possible to play grandmaster level western
chess by computer without using human style selective search, which
may explain the absence of a chess program using Botvinnk's methods.
However, there are other games (Shogi) and AI tasks such as robot
planning which could possibly benefit.
The impression I get from the literature is that the various methods
which have been proposed for heuristic search, including B*, are only
partial solutions - a synthesis of these methods is needed for maximum
power.
AJR
Komputer Korner
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de wrote:
snipped
If Computer Schach and Spiele are commercial interests, which
commercially based computer chess programs do they represent and
can you give us an example of their lies translated into English?
If you can't give answers to the above questions, then they have
a good case to sue you.
--
Komputer Korner
The komputer that couldn't kompute the square root of
36^n.
Chris Whittington
"Moritz Berger" <ber...@zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de> wrote:> > > > In <84597315...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> Chris Whittington
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Chris: whole discussion about killerbooks sucks.
> > > > Every GM has a killerbook. I recently lost again a game because of
> > > > such a human killerbook. Some GM's Fiderating is based on
> killerbooks.
> > >
> > > I neither agree with you nor with Chris:
> > > I think the whole discussion about killer books sucks because people
> > don't
> > > stop making silly comparisons between human and computer book
> > preparation.
> > >
> >
> > If a human prepars against another human, this is ok, or professionally.
> > But if a chess-program prepares against another chess-program,
> > this is NOT OK ??
> > AND IT IS NOT professionally???
> >
> > There is no difference between human-opening-book-preparation and
> > programs having cooked-books despite from the fact that humans can
> > forget lines and computers only when I pour orange-juice over them.
> > What is a silly comparison Dirk? Silly is that Mchess is blamed because
> > of something, a human would get compliments for.
>
> paraphrase in English:
>
> Imagine that you kidnap Kasparov, play thousands of games against him, test
> your openings against him, find out how to beat him (just imagine that all
> other top 10 players will help you with this task). Build your own killer
> knowledge about him and take as much time as you need for this. Now erase
> all memory about this from his brain.
>
> Now you defeat Garry in a public match. You know what he will play and how
> he reasons, but he doesn't know about your "special" preparation.
>
> Do you consider this a fair match? Would you still consider this even to be
> a game of chess for other reasons than the mere adherence to the rules that
> govern the behaviour of the pieces?
Difference:
It would not be reasonable for Kasparov to imagine this kind
of tactic could be used against him.
It would be entirely reasonable that any chess programmer would
imagine that a pubished version of his program could be 'interrogated'
in this way.
Therefore, to answer your question: no it wouldn't be fair
against Kasparov, but would be fair against a program.
Chris Whittington
Peter W. Gillgasch
Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Berliner in ICCA journal:
>
> "If I were Botwinnik I would be ashamed of myself. I hope that when
> I get to his age, I will have enough good sense to know what I am
> capable of and what I am not, and leave the latter alone. To try and
> convince others that you are what you are not, is unbecoming of
> a World Class person. .........
This is of course harsh, but this is Hans. He is not easy to deal with
but if you deal with him you know that, and if you publish anything you
have to deal with criticism, so it is perfectly fair.
> Botvinnik is not a meaningful
> person in the field of computer chess, and if he wishes to comment on
> this field, he should make it clear that it is the comments of a chess
> player not a computer person.
"A meaningful person in the field of computer chess" is by a reasonable
definition someone who designed and/or wrote a reasonably strong program
or parts thereof that can be improved by the remainder of the community.
Can we agree on that ?
Botvinnik never achieved this. It it a question of self-esteem if you
criticize people in a very harsh form who achieved something in their
field while you achieved nothing.
> I also wish to take issue with the editors of the ICCA journal ....."
This was related to the publication of Botvinnik's infamous "Three
positions" article.
> My concern with this article is not the scientific content, nor the
> reasoned critique of Botwinnik, but the use of such personal
> and emotional language in what purports to be a scientific journal.
Partially the "personal and emotional" language can be explained by the
following thought which is expressed in the article of Berliner as well:
Botvinnik damages the reputation of a scientific field by publishing
"manicured" results. If something like this happens in any scientific
field *and* is honoured by the community [by publication in a reviewed
journal and by being invited as "guest of honour" at conferences etc.]
then the whole field looses creditability and scientists working in this
field have to suffer for this [lack of funding, "no field in which
scientific standards are enforced" etc].
This is of course a fundamental criticism of the ICCAJ and I applaud the
decision of all persons involved to reprint Berliner's letter in full
length, since this shows that it is a healthy scientific publication.
> Attack Botwinnik's ideas - fine. But his person, not fine.
I don't think that Berliner intended to attack the ideas of Botvinnik
but the *presentation* of the ideas in such a form that a casual
observer can nothing but conclude that Botvinnik's group is light years
ahead of the remainder of the field. The complete lack of proof of that
claim is a slap into the face of every scientist working in this field.
It is a difference between presenting ideas and faking results.
If you have ideas, good. If you have ideas that cannot be implemented,
good, state this, share the ideas and let others think about them. If
you present ideas and *claim* that they are already implemented [but you
present the implementation to nobody and don't give any implementation
details] you are simply an impostor who deserves nothing but being
ignored. Berliner's article was clearly not directed against the person
of Botvinnik, it was partially directed against a certain aspect of his
character but the most important aspect was the criticism of the
scientific community and especially the ICCA that there are two
standards applied to reviewing publication, one for researchers, one for
Botvinnik.
> Botwinnik died shortly afterwards.
Well he was very old and he died about one year later. I am sure that
his death and Berliner's article are in no way related.
> Berliner and the ICCA publishers should be ashamed of themselves.
Don't think so. The rejonder of Botvinnik to Berliner's fundamental
criticism went along the lines of "it is my understanding that Mr
Berliner is scared of Chess Computer Sapiens, he should wait 6 months
then it will beat all other programs". He died more than a year later I
think. Of course Chess Computer Sapiens died with him and no single game
of this program was ever published, if it ever played a full game, which
I doubt very strongly.
-- Peter
Chris Whittington
Yup, Thorsten needs to be more careful with the quad 20 millimeter
cannons.
But the law in Germany over libel is much less used in Germany
than in the UK and the USA, so he is probably safe.
Chris Whittington
Dennis Ward
Could the harshness of Berliner's tone be due to one of the following three?
A. As a person, Berliner is an ass-hole
B. Berliner is mad because he was never the player that Botvinnik was?
C. Both of the above
Just wondering'
Dennis
Rolf W. Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>Hans convinced me that his analysis was correct and Botvinnik was wrong and
>made lots of errors. That's not at issue with me. Just that Hans let his
>comments get pretty personal and accusatory. I understand his motive, and
>his strong feelings, but Hans and I are two different people and react
>differently to things. That being said, I would have been gentler. Of
>course, it still doesn't excuse Dr. Botvinnik's sloppy presentation.
--------------------------------------------------------
Nov 2th.
Bob, thanks. (For your Oct 25th.)
I've no problem to take your verdict/impression as benchmark.
For this month/year I can easily let it stay. Science doesn't walk on
the wild side. Truth tends to surface in the long run. The higher
one's reputation the greater is the risk to take one side in
unstable/believer stuff.
I'd like to repeat s.th. which shouldn't be forgotten.
If some day Chris/selective pp. is progressing the whole question will
look different.
One minor addition to data/judgement/personal insults.
For me educated with the average scientific framework it's always
hinting at political/believer stuff disguised as scientifical findings
when the arguments become too personal. Period.
For me Berliner did all his *science* a bit late in his life. It's not
so seldom that you go for an academic degree with your life-time
hobby. These people without drinking the basics with their
*mothermilk* (german saying) tend to give the prophet role.
In real science a good argument is completely sufficient to convince
your collegues. Worldwide.
So if you do otherwise in science you're simply *out*.
Berliner is in my opininion somewhat special because claiming World
Champion title in correspondance has NOTHING to do with the notion
World Champ. It's s.th. like soccer and table kicking. You know where
you play with little mechanical toys on a kitchen table.
So there is a big difference. Please all corres. lovers don't misread
my joke. I would be happy to achieve masterqualifier even in corres.
And I didn't say that corres. is no chess at all. Please :))
(Supplement: In some parts of Europe you have the title *Herr
Professor* if you are instructor in a *dwarf school* behind the seven
hills. So titles alone mean nothing. :))
Berliner's *insults* as I could read in some quotes by Chris are no
insults for me but chicken hacks on a roost-ladder if my dictionary
was right. :)
After all one has to consider that two old men sometimes love to
quarrel. I even intend to see some comical sides. Surely I'm too young
for having personal experience. :)
Rolf
Rolf W. Tueschen
Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>(Rolf W. Tueschen) wrote:
>>
>> hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>>
>> > Technical attacks on data, yes. I felt (and still feel)
>> >that (a) botvinnik was wrong for publishing what he did, and (b) Hans was
>> >wrong for the too-personal flavor of the attack...
>>
>> >Bob
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Could someone mail me or post the original article of Hans Berliner
>> please?
>The article is too long for me to type in, but to give a flavour
>of the kind of commetns made, heer is part of the 'conclusion':
--------------------------
>Attack Botwinnik's ideas - fine. But his person, not fine.
>Botwinnik died shortly afterwards.
>Berliner and the ICCA publishers should be ashamed of themselves.
>Chris Whittington
>>
>> I read sort of traduction in german CSS.
------------
>> I for my part would be happy never to be *on the horns of a dilemma*
>> like this in my life.
>>
>> Therefore I like Bob's more complex view.
>>
>> Rolf Tueschen
>>
Receiving Chris' post not before Nov 2 I want to explain that in
german CSS they brought out only the so called Part 1 of Berliner's.
The journal appears each second month.
So when the mag came out the next time 83 years old Mikhail Botvinnik
was dead.
Frederic Friedel commented (I remarked some discrepancies to his
former article where he told us drinking and eating cake with
Botvinnik and afterwards stealing some h2 pawns from his board --
secret agent like actions).
Marty Hirsch gave a beautiful Memoriam for Botvinnik as player and
computer man.
Concerning the second part of the Berliner article Friedel wrote
(please read this repeatedly): now publishing the part 2 *would
neither be suitable/adequate (in german: angemessen) nor
NECESSARY (german: noetig)*.
Very special remark indeed.
I'll come back to this later on.
Therefore the second part of Berliner is of great importance to me.
It smells to be a further killerbook variation but of the very
filigree sort.
Rolf Tueschen
Moritz Berger
Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> >
> > mcl...@prima.ruhr.de wrote:
< snip >
> > Because they have commercial interests.
> >
> > This is not jounalism, this is ADVERTISING.
> >
> > Computer Schach & Spiele is not NEWS, it is
> > pure advertising and the bad thing about this is not
> > that the people pay money to get the magazine, although it is
> > advertising,
> > the bad thing of this is:
> > the publishers believe their readers are stupid!"
> >
> >
> > Komputer Korner's question to Thorstein Czub!!!!!
> > If Computer Schach and Spiele are commercial interests, which
> > commercially based computer chess programs do they represent and
> > can you give us an example of their lies translated into English?
> > If you can't give answers to the above questions, then they have
> > a good case to sue you.
>
> Yup, Thorsten needs to be more careful with the quad 20 millimeter
> cannons.
>
> But the law in Germany over libel is much less used in Germany
> than in the UK and the USA, so he is probably safe.
>
> Chris Whittington
between advertisements and "normal" articels seems to be much less used
here, or so you might conclude from some articles in the CSS. Without using
strong words, here are a few facts (just to show you what I'm talking
about):
Let's take e.g. the infamous "Truth about Botvinnik issue" 4/94.
Dieter Steinwender is editor in chief and publisher of Computer Schach und
Spiele (CSS).
Dieter Steinwender is also a distributor / reseller of several chess
programs and utilities.
On page 19, we find informations about Rebel 6 (Rebel 6 ist da!)
The subscribers of the CSS disk service get a Rebel 6 demo for free, they
can order the full version (surprise, surprise: From Steinwender's chess
store). We learn this in the article on page 19.
Now let's turn to page 54: Here we find two ads for Rebel 6, one from
Schröder B.V. and one from HCC (Ossi Weiner).
Guess what? The ads contain the same (and even more information) than the
article on page 19, Steinwender has only paraphrased them and lets the
readers know in his article on page 19 that Rebel can be ordered from his
store.
HCC has to pay for a 1/2 page ad, also Schroeder B.V. Steinwender basically
gets his ad (oops - his article) for free. The article on page 19 doesn't
name the author - you are free to guess.
This looks like commercial interests to me. I don't think that libel laws
apply here.
Other examples: Distributors and programmers very often write articles
about their programs. Matthis Wüllenweber presents ChessBase for Windows in
a 6 page article in the aforementioned issue, including detailed ordering
and price informations. The editorial also lists Günther Niggemann as a
regular contributor, I think the biggest chess distributor and reseller in
Germany, which also quite frequently presents his products also in the
"journalistic" part of the CSS. Etc. etc. etc.
One very prominent example is the program Nimzo 3 (distributed by
Steinwender):
- 4 1/2 page article in issue 3/96
- "Lonesome Cowboy" editorial in issue 3/96, describing the fame and glory
of Nimzo's programmer, Dr. Donninger.
- Cover page in issue 4/96 "Nimzo 3 der große Stratege"
- 7 page, 2 articles in issue 4/96 ("Nimzo on its way to the top?")
Nimzo 3 is the only program currently advertised in Steinwender's fullpage
ads in the CSS. I leave the implications to you ...
Moritz
Chris Whittington
Yes, I agree. Computer Schach und Spiele is one part of a
marketing exercise.
Fritz, Chessbase, Steinwender's shop, Computer Schach und Spiele
all exist together and support each other.
If you have a distribution channel, then owning the main media
associated with that channel is a good strategy.
Coupled with this is a relationship that ensured that Fritz got
to play against Kasparov, and the whole thing then placed onto
German television.
Its not far short of a monopoly, broken in Germany only by HCC,
Gambit, Niggeman and direct sellers.
Behind the scenes there are substantial opportunities to make money.
Arranging tournaments, getting sponsorship, fixing stuff up for TV.
10% each time is a good living.
The tentacles of this beast spread far. And each tentacle claims
'I do this voluntarily, for no financial compensation'.
One day we may open up the other beastie. Who benefits from
organising the WMCC Championship .......
Chris Whittington
>
> Moritz
>
Chris Whittington
gil...@ilk.de (Peter W. Gillgasch) wrote:
>
> Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Berliner in ICCA journal:
> >
> > "If I were Botwinnik I would be ashamed of myself. I hope that when
> > I get to his age, I will have enough good sense to know what I am
> > capable of and what I am not, and leave the latter alone. To try and
> > convince others that you are what you are not, is unbecoming of
> > a World Class person. .........
>
> This is of course harsh, but this is Hans. He is not easy to deal with
> but if you deal with him you know that, and if you publish anything you
> have to deal with criticism, so it is perfectly fair.
>
> > Botvinnik is not a meaningful
> > person in the field of computer chess, and if he wishes to comment on
> > this field, he should make it clear that it is the comments of a chess
> > player not a computer person.
>
> "A meaningful person in the field of computer chess" is by a reasonable
> definition someone who designed and/or wrote a reasonably strong program
> or parts thereof that can be improved by the remainder of the community.
>
> Can we agree on that ?
Nope :)
Botwinnik was Russian. He operated, as a Russian scientist, in the
Soviet Union.
USSR scientists were well known for working *without* experimental
facilities - due to lack of funds (75% or so of GDP went for
armaments).
Much research was by thought experiment.
Funds were (if ever) forthcoming only if the thought experiment
results were acceptable (of course, being a hardened and politically
correct communist also helped).
Scientists got paid (there were many in the USSR, but their wages
couldn't of course buy any consumer goods), the problem was in getting
the kit.
To keep his project alive, Botwinnik 'had' to publish thought
experiment stuff, give talks, do all the things a Soviet scientist
did.
He's being judged through the eyes of westerners who can always
have whatever toys they want.
CC Sapiens was a program, it just wasn't coded, nor did it have any
hardware. The trees were Botwinnik's ideas, not coded, not algorithmically
explained, but not necessarily un-functional.
I still think the Berliner attack was unpleasant, and unfitting for
a supposedly academic and impartial journal.
Chris Whittington
Rolf W. Tueschen
Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Yup, it was my post.
Thanks, Chris.
Your post appeared on my server a bit late ten days after the 19th.
I wish to confirm that my cryptic joke was not meant for you.
Sorry if you had some reflections on that.
For me it's kind of working with some people's mail war.
They want to hide s.th. But won't tell me what it is.
I'm just too curious.
Rolf Tueschen
Harald Faber
Hello chrisw # cpsoft.demon.co.uk,
I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:
CW> But now, many people (not you though) are turning it into a
CW> 'I'm buying Rebel, and I'm not buying Mchess' and vice versa type
CW> silly stuff.
Sorry, that is not correct. Everybody having an own opinion MAY buy both
programs to compare on his own like I do. MChessPro5 can't be that high
rated only by book cooking so it really has to be a strong program. Of
course I am satisfied to have bought Rebel, but I want to build up my own
opinion of MChessPro5 and with a price of 75 Deutchmarks there was no time
to think about that.
Ciao and see ya
Harald
--
mclane
Peter W. Gillgasch wrote:
>
> Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Berliner in ICCA journal:
> >
> > "If I were Botwinnik I would be ashamed of myself. I hope that when
> > I get to his age, I will have enough good sense to know what I am
> > capable of and what I am not, and leave the latter alone. To try and
> > convince others that you are what you are not, is unbecoming of
> > a World Class person. .........
>
> This is of course harsh, but this is Hans. He is not easy to deal with
> but if you deal with him you know that, and if you publish anything you
> have to deal with criticism, so it is perfectly fair.
>
> > Botvinnik is not a meaningful
> > person in the field of computer chess, and if he wishes to comment on
> > this field, he should make it clear that it is the comments of a chess
> > player not a computer person.
>
> "A meaningful person in the field of computer chess" is by a reasonable
> definition someone who designed and/or wrote a reasonably strong program
> or parts thereof that can be improved by the remainder of the community.
>
> Can we agree on that ?
>
Yes.
What about the articles in Computer Schach & Spiele concerning
Botwinnik?
How is this connected to the date Botwinnik died?
Any relations?
mclane
Chris Whittington wrote:
>
> Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> >
> > mcl...@prima.ruhr.de wrote:
> >
> > "Make money out of lies!
> >
> > They adress to stupid readers (they tell that to anybody
> > who ask them for) and are always trying to "reduce the
> > understanding-level to the IQ-level of the readers.
> > This is, of course, their claim. And their intention.
> >
> > They want to decrease the level, they think that their reader are
> > stupid,
> > therefore they desinform the people and always stress:
> > we have to reduce the level in the computer-schach & spiele.
> > We have to reduce it.
> >
> > They do! You can be sure: They will reduce it in future.
> >
> > They call this desinformation: journalism.
> >
> > I know many people who tried to write letters to them, and
> > the letters were not published and they got no answers
> > from the PUBLISHERS.
> >
> > The reader-letters and the articles are censored.
> >
> > Because they have commercial interests.
> >
> > This is not jounalism, this is ADVERTISING.
> >
> > Computer Schach & Spiele is not NEWS, it is
> > pure advertising and the bad thing about this is not
> > that the people pay money to get the magazine, although it is
> > advertising,
> > the bad thing of this is:
> > the publishers believe their readers are stupid!"
> >
> >
> > Komputer Korner's question to Thorstein Czub!!!!!
> > If Computer Schach and Spiele are commercial interests, which
> > commercially based computer chess programs do they represent and
> > can you give us an example of their lies translated into English?
> > If you can't give answers to the above questions, then they have
> > a good case to sue you.
>
> Yup, Thorsten needs to be more careful with the quad 20 millimeter
> cannons.
I know you are an expert with cannons and wars, chris.
Maybe you can answer me (on the internet) why you are very
difficult to reach/get in the last weeks whenever I tried to phone you?!
>
> But the law in Germany over libel is much less used in Germany
> than in the UK and the USA, so he is probably safe.
>
Nobody is safe!
It could happen to you, Ed, Marty and anybody.
Again:
Chris Whittington wins the championship with Chess System Tal.
His program is bought exclusively by a guy called X.
It is not tested into an organisation that is doing
test-work for fun, or when they "test" it, they do it on
a computer that is one generation below that other concurrent
programs.
The guy called x decreases the price of product Chess System Tal,
because he cannot sell ANY unit, he says. But he is doing it
for other reasons.
Program Chess System Tal will not tested in organisation on
the same machines like the concurrent programs for
One year !!
Nobody remembers on Chess System Tal.
The price is very low.
Mr Whittingtonix, the great programmer and distributor gets
nothing, or mainly nothing for a product that is fair, ok and nice.
All that could happen to YOU, because you are programmers
and nobody can SAFE you for this ?!
Make your own experience instead of telling us,
we are bad because we register this kind of desinformation.
it will happen to you, thats the way the system works.
Thats they way, capitalism works.
Cheating, lieing, manipulation, desinformation.
Survival of the fittest means:
Survival of those, the best in betraying.
Thats capitalism.
Why do you blame me for naming the rules of the game?!
If you play it, you get dirty hands.
Why do you stop playing it instead blaming me because I comment
the game that happens all over the world, in any
nation and any paper.
mclane
Moritz Berger wrote:
>
> Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > mcl...@prima.ruhr.de wrote:
> < snip >
> > > Because they have commercial interests.
> > >
> > > This is not jounalism, this is ADVERTISING.
> > >
> > > Computer Schach & Spiele is not NEWS, it is
> > > pure advertising and the bad thing about this is not
> > > that the people pay money to get the magazine, although it is
> > > advertising,
> > > the bad thing of this is:
> > > the publishers believe their readers are stupid!"
> > >
> > >
> > > Komputer Korner's question to Thorstein Czub!!!!!
> > > If Computer Schach and Spiele are commercial interests, which
> > > commercially based computer chess programs do they represent and
> > > can you give us an example of their lies translated into English?
> > > If you can't give answers to the above questions, then they have
> > > a good case to sue you.
> >
> > Yup, Thorsten needs to be more careful with the quad 20 millimeter
> > cannons.
> >
> > than in the UK and the USA, so he is probably safe.
> >
Are, here we have some guy that is not that lazy and is quoting
some facts ed asks for.
I hope also KK will recognize these points from his far away place.
I hope also some of the 12.000 subscibers will read.
I am sure if we REALLY START searching about
strange connections and illegal articles, we will find more and more
connections.
Shall we ???
I guess we will get the names of many powerful distributors named
here together with commercial interests and so known
"articles" that are just adverts!
Lets start the war - if you want.
But for the NON-subscibers of Computer-Schach and Spiele,
mainly the not german speaking guys all over the world,
this is not much for interest, isn't it?!
Some people do suggest or imply that we don't have FACTS to show
or to proof that these deals are ugly and done
because of pur commercial interests.
But be sure, we can!
mclane
Dennis Ward wrote:
> > >
> > > "If I were Botwinnik I would be ashamed of myself. I hope that when
> > > I get to his age, I will have enough good sense to know what I am
> > > capable of and what I am not, and leave the latter alone. To try and
> > > convince others that you are what you are not, is unbecoming of
> > > a World Class person. .........
> >
> > This is of course harsh, but this is Hans. He is not easy to deal with
> > but if you deal with him you know that, and if you publish anything you
> > have to deal with criticism, so it is perfectly fair.
> >
> > > Botvinnik is not a meaningful
> > > person in the field of computer chess, and if he wishes to comment on
> > > this field, he should make it clear that it is the comments of a chess
> > > player not a computer person.
> >
> > "A meaningful person in the field of computer chess" is by a reasonable
> > definition someone who designed and/or wrote a reasonably strong program
> > or parts thereof that can be improved by the remainder of the community.
> >
> > Can we agree on that ?
> >
>
> A. As a person, Berliner is an ass-hole
> B. Berliner is mad because he was never the player that Botvinnik was?
> C. Both of the above
>
> Just wondering'
> Dennis
I see I have found my master!
Couldn't you asnwer to some special postings about
Computer Schach and Spiele!
I would like to hear your nice replies on these
people too !!
Unbelievable!
And people attack me when I write my harmless posting!!
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de
In article <01bbc91a$0d7625c0$Loca...@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>, "Moritz Berger"
<ber...@zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de> writes:
>This looks like commercial interests to me. I don't think that libel laws
>apply here.
>
Isn't Rebel the program of ED SCHROEDER ???
Oh - wasn't he posting a few moments before that this magazine
we speak about: is saying the truth because it has
12.000 subscibers who proof this by not cancelling the subscibtion?
Maybe Ed is not that much understanding german that he can
SEE the relationsships between
commercial interests and the CSS magazine.
Maybe we should translate it for him, into dutch or english
that he can read better what we are talking about,
maybe it is unfair to ciriticize if somebody cannot read the
original magazine in the mother language.
Ed, how good is your german?
>Other examples: Distributors and programmers very often write articles
>about their programs. Matthis Wüllenweber presents ChessBase for Windows in
>a 6 page article in the aforementioned issue, including detailed ordering
>and price informations.
I have seen Mr. Wuellenweber also often in television.
He has a nice hair cut!
Why is always ChessBase on television?
And who is the man with the dark outlook
beside Gary Kasparov???
They told he is named something with Freddy Frustel or
Frederico Fridello, but it was not easy to understand,
seems my television set needs some new adjustment.
Oh - now they have said it:
he is the same guy that always says to me, on telephone:
Thorsten - ChessBase wird dein Leben verändern!
Thorsten - ChessBase will change your life!
I think I know this guy from several meetings in the past!!
The editorial also lists Günther Niggemann as a
>regular contributor, I think the biggest chess distributor and reseller in
>Germany, which also quite frequently presents his products also in the
>"journalistic" part of the CSS. Etc. etc. etc.
>
Yes - they are all "journalists" ! They call their business
really journalism!
This famous CSS 4 / 94 where Frederic Friedel wrote his
famous article about Mr.Botwinnik.
Mr. Friedel says that he has the duty to tell the truth as a jounalist!
Both statements in one sentence !!
Chris Whittington
mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote:
>
> Chris Whittington wrote:
> >
> > Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > mcl...@prima.ruhr.de wrote:
> > >
> > > "Make money out of lies!
> > >
> > > They adress to stupid readers (they tell that to anybody
> > > who ask them for) and are always trying to "reduce the
> > > understanding-level to the IQ-level of the readers.
> > > This is, of course, their claim. And their intention.
> > >
> > > They want to decrease the level, they think that their reader are
> > > stupid,
> > > therefore they desinform the people and always stress:
> > > we have to reduce the level in the computer-schach & spiele.
> > > We have to reduce it.
> > >
> > > They do! You can be sure: They will reduce it in future.
> > >
> > > They call this desinformation: journalism.
> > >
> > > I know many people who tried to write letters to them, and
> > > the letters were not published and they got no answers
> > > from the PUBLISHERS.
> > >
> > > The reader-letters and the articles are censored.
> > >
> > > Because they have commercial interests.
> > >
> > > This is not jounalism, this is ADVERTISING.
> > >
> > > Computer Schach & Spiele is not NEWS, it is
> > > pure advertising and the bad thing about this is not
> > > that the people pay money to get the magazine, although it is
> > > advertising,
> > > the bad thing of this is:
> > > the publishers believe their readers are stupid!"
> > >
> > >
> > > Komputer Korner's question to Thorstein Czub!!!!!
> > > If Computer Schach and Spiele are commercial interests, which
> > > commercially based computer chess programs do they represent and
> > > can you give us an example of their lies translated into English?
> > > If you can't give answers to the above questions, then they have
> > > a good case to sue you.
> >
> > Yup, Thorsten needs to be more careful with the quad 20 millimeter
> > cannons.
>
> Maybe you can answer me (on the internet) why you are very
> difficult to reach/get in the last weeks whenever I tried to phone you?!
>
Ok, we spoke about this yesterday. If you want the answer over the
net it is: because I get fed up with listening to the same record
stuck in a groove.
But this is now resolved :)
> >
> > But the law in Germany over libel is much less used in Germany
> > than in the UK and the USA, so he is probably safe.
> >
>
> Nobody is safe!
> It could happen to you, Ed, Marty and anybody.
>
> Again:
> Chris Whittington wins the championship with Chess System Tal.
> His program is bought exclusively by a guy called X.
> It is not tested into an organisation that is doing
> test-work for fun, or when they "test" it, they do it on
> a computer that is one generation below that other concurrent
> programs.
Ok, I know that this kind of stuff can be a problem for nieve
programmers. They believe the big distributor and then he kills them.
If you want to suggest that I can get killed this way. I say, no.
I have experience in dealing with monopolistic distribution
and control of the market by media.
There are ways round these people. just look at the campaign of Ed
on the Internet .....
Your example is of a program you used to work with (Hiarcs) and
how his sales were killed by the great satans :)
Chris Whittington
Peter W. Gillgasch
Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> gil...@ilk.de (Peter W. Gillgasch) wrote:
> >
> > Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Berliner in ICCA journal:
[ razor ]
> > > "Botvinnik is not a meaningful person in the field of computer chess,
> > > and if he wishes to comment on this field, he should make it clear
> > > that it is the comments of a chess player not a computer person.
> >
> > "A meaningful person in the field of computer chess" is by a reasonable
> > definition someone who designed and/or wrote a reasonably strong program
> > or parts thereof that can be improved by the remainder of the community.
> >
> > Can we agree on that ?
>
> Nope :)
Oh damned. Chris, you surprise me. Even Thorsten Czub agreed on that [a
fact that surprised me as well].
"Nope". Really ? Are you kidding ?
> Botwinnik was Russian. He operated, as a Russian scientist, in the
> Soviet Union.
I agree on "Russian". I agree that he operated (whatever he did) most of
the time in the Soviet Union. I disagree that he operated as a
scientist.
> USSR scientists were well known for working *without* experimental
> facilities - due to lack of funds (75% or so of GDP went for
> armaments).
References regarding the experimental facilities please. I have a lot of
books here on technical stuff (electrical engineering, optics,
application of numerical computations) that is both top notch and has
practical purpose so they never have been in the really dark ages.
And if 75% of the GDP went into the military, great. Look at Sandia.
They donated machine time to *Socrates. Guess what the world's largest
Paragon is doing when it doesn't loose to Fritz^H^H^H^H^H, eh, play
chess. It plays other things :-)
> Much research was by thought experiment.
> Funds were (if ever) forthcoming only if the thought experiment
> results were acceptable (of course, being a hardened and politically
> correct communist also helped).
The last point is probably true. Botvinnik was known for being 100% CP
so I can't see why he should have any problems getting some machine.
More about this later.
> Scientists got paid (there were many in the USSR, but their wages
> couldn't of course buy any consumer goods), the problem was in getting
> the kit.
I know enough people who wanted to donate him a machine. He refused. Go
figure.
Another point: the Kaissa group. They had [at times] the biggest machine
in the Soviet Union I think.
> To keep his project alive, Botwinnik 'had' to publish thought
> experiment stuff, give talks, do all the things a Soviet scientist
> did.
Ok. I can see that talking and adding a lot of crap to your publication
list helps getting funding 8^) But the crux is that he didn't do that.
He didn't say "this is the tree we should search", he said "this is the
tree Pioneer [or Chess Computer Sapiens, which is obviously a cryptic
joke about CCS ;-)] *does* search". And he said that the program exists.
And he said that it will beat all other programs within 6 months after
the "Three positions" article.
A couple of years before that article some of his programmers even
published subsystems of it in the ICCAJ and they claimed that the system
is running on an 80386. I can supply you with the exact references if
needed [before you say "see, it existed!" it was about trajectory
analysis with a lot of smoke and mirrors, not about the cool search
algorithm].
So your point goes up in smoke, sorry.
> He's being judged through the eyes of westerners who can always
> have whatever toys they want.
Wah. He is judged by people who don't put up any crap. The academic
standards [in terms of being correct etc] in the East was not lower than
that in the West [in technical sciences that is]. Your claim is a slap
into the face of each hard working scientist in the USSR. If *that* is
science in the USSR then, heck, they couldn't have build those neat
ICBMs.
Being from Russia is no excuse. The wish to travel to the West is no
excuse. Being a former World Champion is no excuse.
> CC Sapiens was a program, it just wasn't coded, nor did it have any
> hardware. The trees were Botwinnik's ideas, not coded, not algorithmically
> explained, but not necessarily un-functional.
I suggest to look up the definition of "program" in any dictionary.
Hint: the definition has something to do with "algorithmically
explained". I thought you know better than that 8^)
> I still think the Berliner attack was unpleasant, and unfitting for
> a supposedly academic and impartial journal.
I don't want to convince you that it was not. I agree that it was
unpleasant. But it was needed. Sometimes you have to do unpleasant
things...
-- Peter
Robert Hyatt
Yes, the British ICL 4/70, which would probably be outrun by a 4.77mhz
80C88 (original) PC... :)
They never had a decent machine. On a couple of occasions, the ACM made
arrangements for them to use an Amdahl or whatever in the US when they
played here.
:
: > To keep his project alive, Botwinnik 'had' to publish thought
You sometimes have to do unpleasant things, but you don't have to do it
in an insulting way. You can point out mistakes. You don't have to
speculate on why the mistakes were made, nor do you have to speculate
about the motivation and/or character of the person that published the
mistakes.
I review 2-3 books per year for various publishers. I send them back a
written critique of the book, I point out obvious mistakes, if there are
any, but I do it without blasting the author with personal insults, and
I certainly don't try to speculate about the author's motivation for
publishing something with errors in it. It could be a true mistake,
it could be an oversight due to advanced age, it could be due to some
assistant screwing up something, it could be *any* of a dozen different
things. What's gained by speculating on the possible cause?
Try this: Have you *ever* had a version of your program that solved some
particularly interesting problem extremely quickly? Then, months later have
you ever found a bug that when fixed makes you *stop* solving that particular
problem? I have.
I'm not anti-Hans here, because there were many errors in the paper that he
found and pointed out. As he should have. And had he done just that, I
would have agreed and kept on working on my chess project. However, he went
somewhat "over the line" (IMHO, of course, and only IMHO) and made the remarks
too personal. Even if his speculation about motives is true, there's a long-
time principle called "praise in public, chastise in private." It's taught
in every management school, in every school of education (teacher schools) and
even in most software engineering texts. *that* was unacceptable, IMHO. It
would have been better to first confront Botvinnik, and give *him* the chance
to correct the errors or retract that which was wrong. Think how your kids
would react to such behavior by you... rake 'em over the coals in public,
embarass them, and even speculate about why they did what they did and then
embarass them about that as well, even though you couldn't really read their
mind at all. Being a judge is o.k., maybe even a one-man jury, but *not*
executioner as well. That simply goes a tad too far in my book. If you want
to defend Hans because you are working with him, feel free... However, in
this case, some if the defense sounds "hollow."
Peter W. Gillgasch
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
> Peter W. Gillgasch (gil...@ilk.de) wrote:
> : Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[ Big snip ]
> : > I still think the Berliner attack was unpleasant, and unfitting for
> : > a supposedly academic and impartial journal.
> :
> : I don't want to convince you that it was not. I agree that it was
> : unpleasant. But it was needed. Sometimes you have to do unpleasant
> : things...
>
> You sometimes have to do unpleasant things, but you don't have to do it
> in an insulting way. You can point out mistakes. You don't have to
> speculate on why the mistakes were made, nor do you have to speculate
> about the motivation and/or character of the person that published the
> mistakes.
Well that is of course correct. But you have to remember how Botvinnik
made jokes about Greenblatt and all the others. Basically every chess
programmer was an idiot in his eyes, so why should anybody handle him
with care ?
> I review 2-3 books per year for various publishers. I send them back a
> written critique of the book, I point out obvious mistakes, if there are
> any, but I do it without blasting the author with personal insults, and
> I certainly don't try to speculate about the author's motivation for
> publishing something with errors in it. It could be a true mistake,
> it could be an oversight due to advanced age, it could be due to some
> assistant screwing up something, it could be *any* of a dozen different
> things. What's gained by speculating on the possible cause?
In that case of course nothing. But what would you do if you have read a
couple of books by the same author about some field you know an awful
lot about and you find those since 15 years without any basis and you
slowly are getting angry ? Then the publisher sends you the new
manuscript and you see the same picture again and again ?
You would not make a sour remark or two ? If you say "no I would not"
then you have to be prepared that Don Fong or one of your special
friends posts an awful lot of stuff that proves you wrong... 8^)
> Try this: Have you *ever* had a version of your program that solved some
> particularly interesting problem extremely quickly? Then, months later have
> you ever found a bug that when fixed makes you *stop* solving that particular
> problem? I have.
Same here of course. Gimme 1 buck for each bug I made and fixed...
> I'm not anti-Hans here, because there were many errors in the paper that he
> found and pointed out. As he should have. And had he done just that, I
> would have agreed and kept on working on my chess project. However, he went
> somewhat "over the line" (IMHO, of course, and only IMHO) and made the remarks
> too personal. Even if his speculation about motives is true, there's a long-
> time principle called "praise in public, chastise in private."
In this specific case Botvinnik had earned enough praise in public. It
was time to get him and the ICCA back to Earth again.
As Jonathan said everybody was making jokes about Botvinnik but for some
reason which is completely unclear to me [probably because of his
achievments as chess player] no one dared to criticize *anything* he
said. My guess is that if Botvinnik would have been treated with the
respect he deserved <grin> by the ICCA that Hans's letter would have
been less "violent".
> It's taught in every management school, in every school of education
> (teacher schools) and even in most software engineering texts. *that* was
> unacceptable, IMHO. It would have been better to first confront
> Botvinnik, and give *him* the chance to correct the errors or retract that
> which was wrong.
AFAIK it is the policy of the ICCAJ to send the senior author of an
article that is questioned by a reader a copy of the letter of the
reader and the author can comment on the remarks/questions/doubts.
A good example is the Feldmann et al. vs. Schaeffer case regarding early
YBW speedup claims which needed some clarification in Schaeffer's
opinion.
I don't think that settling such things as the "Three positions" article
in private after publishing the original paper is a good idea. This
gives the author of the paper too much of a chance to make an impression
on the readers and to get away with it, especially if he got away with
it for at least a decade or two.
Berliner's letter was published, Botvinnik's rejonder was published. It
was clearly a knock out, I'd say.
> Think how your kids
> would react to such behavior by you... rake 'em over the coals in public,
> embarass them, and even speculate about why they did what they did and then
> embarass them about that as well, even though you couldn't really read their
> mind at all.
Well we are not exactly talking about educating adolescents 8^)
> Being a judge is o.k., maybe even a one-man jury, but *not*
> executioner as well.
I can't see how this article was an execution. The rejonder of Botvinnik
was. The "execution" is left to the readers.
> That simply goes a tad too far in my book. If you want
> to defend Hans because you are working with him, feel free... However, in
> this case, some if the defense sounds "hollow."
Well if the article was written by [some name here] I'd defend it as
well, so this is not pro-Hans or anti-Hans [although I doubt that the
ICCAJ would have printed the article if it was written by some "unknown"
guy].
The interesting facts about the article are IMHO:
1. It was based on good analysis
2. It was published at all, although Botvinnik seemed to be an icon
of the publishers.
3. It was published by someone who works on selective searching.
*That* are the reasons why I defend it.
If some well known top notch brute force type had written the article
[e.g. Thompson or Hsu], then I might see that you have a point. You said
in this thread that if you haven't "been there" you are not allowed to
criticize...
-- Peter
Ernst A. Heinz
In reply to one of Peter's posts Bob wrote:
> If you want to defend Hans because you are working with him, feel free...
As for Bob's remark above, I would like to state on behalf of the current
"DarkThought" team (Peter left the team in April, so I cannot speak for him)
that we are no longer engaged in any working relation with Hans Berliner
since mid-September 1996 due to mutually incompatible personalities.
=Ernst=
Don Fong
In article <199611042243214489427@[194.121.104.140]>,
Peter W. Gillgasch <gil...@ilk.de> wrote:
>Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>> You sometimes have to do unpleasant things, but you don't have to do it
>> in an insulting way. You can point out mistakes. You don't have to
>> speculate on why the mistakes were made, nor do you have to speculate
>> about the motivation and/or character of the person that published the
>> mistakes.
>In that case of course nothing. But what would you do if you have read a
>couple of books by the same author about some field you know an awful
>lot about and you find those since 15 years without any basis and you
>slowly are getting angry ? Then the publisher sends you the new
>manuscript and you see the same picture again and again ?
>
>You would not make a sour remark or two ? If you say "no I would not"
>then you have to be prepared that Don Fong or one of your special
>friends posts an awful lot of stuff that proves you wrong... 8^)
PMFJI... i wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but
since you mentioned my name: to the best of my knowledge, Bob Hyatt
has been quite consistent in that regard. his public exchanges with
other chess programmers are typically helpful and respectful. i'd
say he is generally reluctant to criticize his colleagues, and when
he does so it is usually muted. Hyatt says he'd have handled the
Botvinnik matter differently than Berliner, and i have no reason to
doubt it.
maybe you are thinking of some of Bob's less polite exchanges
with Tom Kerrigan and Vincent Dieppeveen? it's not the same.
saying something on USENET is like writing in the sand. saying
something in a scientific journal is more like writing in stone.
my 2c: exposing scientific fraud is a dangerous and unpleasant
task. it sounds like a lot of people knew about it, but everyone was
waiting for somebody else to do something about it. one may quibble
over the way Berliner did it, but at least he had the guts to take action.
--
don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
Harald Faber
Hello saj # elias.gams.co.at,
I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:
SAJ> The only problem for me is, that cooked books make it hard to compute
SAJ> a rating for computer programs. Therefore I make the suggestion, that
SAJ> there should be two different rating lists for computer chess
SAJ> programs:
SAJ>
SAJ> 2) programs play fisher random. Then the opening book is useless and
SAJ> the rating would only say something about the engine.
You must be kidding! You can't really expect this for real.
Peter W. Gillgasch
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
> Peter W. Gillgasch (gil...@ilk.de) wrote:
> : Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[
uh. oh. snipping with that many references gets really hard.
I didn't comment on the machine power issues Bob has noted,
which are quite interesting.
]
> : > Scientists got paid (there were many in the USSR, but their wages
> : > couldn't of course buy any consumer goods), the problem was in getting
> : > the kit.
> :
> : I know enough people who wanted to donate him a machine. He refused. Go
> : figure.
> :
> : Another point: the Kaissa group. They had [at times] the biggest machine
> : in the Soviet Union I think.
>
> Yes, the British ICL 4/70, which would probably be outrun by a 4.77mhz
> 80C88 (original) PC... :)
Yeah, I said at times the biggest machine in the SU. That was in the
70ties, right ? What did they use as they played in Stockholm ?
> They never had a decent machine.
Hm. If you mean decent by western academic standards of today you
are certainly right. OTOH today's 8 bit programs time warped into
the 70ties... So if you are really that much ahead of the competition
the hardware should have been good enough. As an aside if you have
only "weak" machines usually you get better in terms of programming
since things are not easy to implement in a hit and run fashion.
> On a couple of occasions, the ACM made arrangements for them to use an
> Amdahl or whatever in the US when they played here.
Interesting. What language did they write in ? Fortran ? Oh dear.
-- Peter
Robert Hyatt
: > : in the Soviet Union I think.
: >
: > Yes, the British ICL 4/70, which would probably be outrun by a 4.77mhz
: > 80C88 (original) PC... :)
: Yeah, I said at times the biggest machine in the SU. That was in the
: 70ties, right ? What did they use as they played in Stockholm ?
I think it was the ICL in Stockholm in 1974. In 1977 they ran on either
a /360 model 91, or an Amdahl I think... Fred Swartz and the Chaos group
at the University of Michigan helped make the machine arrangements... In
fact, I'm almost sure it was an Amdahl... Think Hans used a /360 model 91
at some point.
:
: > They never had a decent machine.
:
: Hm. If you mean decent by western academic standards of today you
: are certainly right. OTOH today's 8 bit programs time warped into
: the 70ties... So if you are really that much ahead of the competition
: the hardware should have been good enough. As an aside if you have
: only "weak" machines usually you get better in terms of programming
: since things are not easy to implement in a hit and run fashion.
:
: > On a couple of occasions, the ACM made arrangements for them to use an
: > Amdahl or whatever in the US when they played here.
:
: Interesting. What language did they write in ? Fortran ? Oh dear.
:
: -- Peter
I really don't remember, but most likely, yes. That's what Cray Blitz was
written in because in the late 70's that's the only choice you had other than
assembly... which I eventually went to anyway for max speed...
Robert Hyatt
Ernst A. Heinz (hei...@ira.uka.de) wrote:
: In reply to one of Peter's posts Bob wrote:
:
: > If you want to defend Hans because you are working with him, feel free...
:
: As for Bob's remark above, I would like to state on behalf of the current
: "DarkThought" team (Peter left the team in April, so I cannot speak for him)
: that we are no longer engaged in any working relation with Hans Berliner
: since mid-September 1996 due to mutually incompatible personalities.
:
: =Ernst=
:)
Komputer Korner
Chris Whittington wrote:
> snipped
>
> >
> > Moritz
> >
Is it true that there are 13,000 subscribers to CSS?
--
Komputer Korner
The komputer that couldn't keep a password safe from prying eyes and
Robert Hyatt
Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
:
: my 2c: exposing scientific fraud is a dangerous and unpleasant
: task. it sounds like a lot of people knew about it, but everyone was
: waiting for somebody else to do something about it. one may quibble
: over the way Berliner did it, but at least he had the guts to take action.
I agree. I just think that Hans should have shot him with a silenced .22
rather than a .454 Casul...
Robert Hyatt
:
: > Peter W. Gillgasch (gil...@ilk.de) wrote:
: > : Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:
: [ Big snip ]
:
: > : > I still think the Berliner attack was unpleasant, and unfitting for
: > : > a supposedly academic and impartial journal.
: > :
: > : I don't want to convince you that it was not. I agree that it was
: > : unpleasant. But it was needed. Sometimes you have to do unpleasant
: > : things...
: >
: > You sometimes have to do unpleasant things, but you don't have to do it
: > in an insulting way. You can point out mistakes. You don't have to
: > speculate on why the mistakes were made, nor do you have to speculate
: > about the motivation and/or character of the person that published the
: > mistakes.
:
: Well that is of course correct. But you have to remember how Botvinnik
: made jokes about Greenblatt and all the others. Basically every chess
: programmer was an idiot in his eyes, so why should anybody handle him
: with care ?
This is news to me. I had a chance to sit and chat with him for bits
and pieces that totaled a couple of hours in 1983 at the World Computer
Chess Championship event. He was quite pleasant and even had to come up
with a plausible explanation for an embarassing situation. Everyone
expected Belle to win that event (there were two people, Ken Thompson
and Joe Condon of course.) Dr. Botvinnik brought the winner a small
prize, two ceremonial drinking "horns" from the USSR. Obviously, he'd
planned on one for Ken, one for Joe. When we won, he had to quickly
come up with some way to present these to us without embarassing himself
by letting everyone know he really thought Belle could win. He offered
"one horn to the programmers" and "one to Cray Blitz, to be given to
the guys up at Cray." :) Nice adjustment...
In any case, I've not seen him ridicule anyone personally, and can't speak
about what I haven't seen... I also talked to Richard Greenblatt many
years ago and he was also brash in his own way. I suspect many of the
people that have talked to me might well say the same thing if they don't
know me very well...
:
: > I review 2-3 books per year for various publishers. I send them back a
: > written critique of the book, I point out obvious mistakes, if there are
: > any, but I do it without blasting the author with personal insults, and
: > I certainly don't try to speculate about the author's motivation for
: > publishing something with errors in it. It could be a true mistake,
: > it could be an oversight due to advanced age, it could be due to some
: > assistant screwing up something, it could be *any* of a dozen different
: > things. What's gained by speculating on the possible cause?
:
: In that case of course nothing. But what would you do if you have read a
: couple of books by the same author about some field you know an awful
: lot about and you find those since 15 years without any basis and you
: slowly are getting angry ? Then the publisher sends you the new
: manuscript and you see the same picture again and again ?
:
: You would not make a sour remark or two ? If you say "no I would not"
: then you have to be prepared that Don Fong or one of your special
: friends posts an awful lot of stuff that proves you wrong... 8^)
The question is, *where* would I do it? If Botvinnik publicly flamed
something I said, I'd respond publicly. If he privately flamed me for
something wrong, I'd respond privately. That was the issue I had with
the ICCA for printing the thing... the fact that it was first taken up
in public, when it had things that were best kept private.
:
: > Try this: Have you *ever* had a version of your program that solved some
: > particularly interesting problem extremely quickly? Then, months later have
: > you ever found a bug that when fixed makes you *stop* solving that particular
: > problem? I have.
:
: Same here of course. Gimme 1 buck for each bug I made and fixed...
Of course... the only ones that haven't are the ones that haven't yet
written a chess program. :) However, I believe in innocent until proven
guilty, and can easily see how it would be possible to report something that
looked wonderful when, in reality, it was chock full of errors. I'll guarantee
you that at age 48, my code has more errors than what I wrote at age 28. My
code is also better written now, but age and such explain a lot. I'm willing
to wait to see, before jumping on someone's back with claws bared...
:
: > I'm not anti-Hans here, because there were many errors in the paper that he
: > found and pointed out. As he should have. And had he done just that, I
: > would have agreed and kept on working on my chess project. However, he went
: > somewhat "over the line" (IMHO, of course, and only IMHO) and made the remarks
: > too personal. Even if his speculation about motives is true, there's a long-
: > time principle called "praise in public, chastise in private."
:
: In this specific case Botvinnik had earned enough praise in public. It
: was time to get him and the ICCA back to Earth again.
:
: As Jonathan said everybody was making jokes about Botvinnik but for some
: reason which is completely unclear to me [probably because of his
: achievments as chess player] no one dared to criticize *anything* he
: said. My guess is that if Botvinnik would have been treated with the
: respect he deserved <grin> by the ICCA that Hans's letter would have
: been less "violent".
:
Your term "the ICCA" here is wrong. The culpable people have to be the
ones that reviewed the paper and said "publish." If the editor made that
choice himself, he should have been canned. But it still seems wrong to
go so far. Personally, I *never* took "pioneer" or "CCS" as serious.
However, there's nothing that says that breakthroughs can't come from
incomplete programs, and it was always possible the he would deliver
something. Just not probable, and at his age, probably not even
reasonable...
: > It's taught in every management school, in every school of education
: > (teacher schools) and even in most software engineering texts. *that* was
: > unacceptable, IMHO. It would have been better to first confront
: > Botvinnik, and give *him* the chance to correct the errors or retract that
: > which was wrong.
:
: AFAIK it is the policy of the ICCAJ to send the senior author of an
: article that is questioned by a reader a copy of the letter of the
: reader and the author can comment on the remarks/questions/doubts.
:
: A good example is the Feldmann et al. vs. Schaeffer case regarding early
: YBW speedup claims which needed some clarification in Schaeffer's
: opinion.
:
: I don't think that settling such things as the "Three positions" article
: in private after publishing the original paper is a good idea. This
: gives the author of the paper too much of a chance to make an impression
: on the readers and to get away with it, especially if he got away with
: it for at least a decade or two.
I agree... However, the right thing to do is to tell the author that either
you recant, rewrite, or we'll publish this rebuttal. Most would do the right
thing because the rebuttal would likely be convincing. No idea what went on
back then, however...
:
: Berliner's letter was published, Botvinnik's rejonder was published. It
: was clearly a knock out, I'd say.
:
: > Think how your kids
: > would react to such behavior by you... rake 'em over the coals in public,
: > embarass them, and even speculate about why they did what they did and then
: > embarass them about that as well, even though you couldn't really read their
: > mind at all.
:
: Well we are not exactly talking about educating adolescents 8^)
:
: > Being a judge is o.k., maybe even a one-man jury, but *not*
: > executioner as well.
:
: I can't see how this article was an execution. The rejonder of Botvinnik
: was. The "execution" is left to the readers.
:
: > That simply goes a tad too far in my book. If you want
: > to defend Hans because you are working with him, feel free... However, in
: > this case, some if the defense sounds "hollow."
:
: Well if the article was written by [some name here] I'd defend it as
: well, so this is not pro-Hans or anti-Hans [although I doubt that the
: ICCAJ would have printed the article if it was written by some "unknown"
: guy].
:
: The interesting facts about the article are IMHO:
:
: 1. It was based on good analysis
: 2. It was published at all, although Botvinnik seemed to be an icon
: of the publishers.
: 3. It was published by someone who works on selective searching.
I agree 100% with the above. If just 5% had been deleted, it would have
been perfect. If you want to rebut, you rebut the *material* and leave a
lasting impression. If you rebut the personality of the author, you leave
a sour impression. I was puckered for months... :)
:
: *That* are the reasons why I defend it.
:
Ed Schroder
From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de
Thorsten, my german is fine...
I have told you my opinion about CCS in a private email.
It's fine with me if you disagree, no problem.
I respect your opinion, please respect mine.
- Ed -
Vincent Diepeveen
In <199611041541592967370@[194.121.104.143]> gil...@ilk.de (Peter W. Gillgasch) writes:
>I agree on "Russian". I agree that he operated (whatever he did) most of
>the time in the Soviet Union. I disagree that he operated as a
>scientist.
If Botwinnik was a scientist, then he was a very bad one.
>> USSR scientists were well known for working *without* experimental
>> facilities - due to lack of funds (75% or so of GDP went for
>> armaments).
In USSR they don't live in the stone age.
>And if 75% of the GDP went into the military, great. Look at Sandia.
>They donated machine time to *Socrates. Guess what the world's largest
>Paragon is doing when it doesn't loose to Fritz^H^H^H^H^H, eh, play
>chess. It plays other things :-)
>> Much research was by thought experiment.
Is this a biography or what?
Sometimes i think that all your experiments are also thought
dream experiments... :)
>> Funds were (if ever) forthcoming only if the thought experiment
>> results were acceptable (of course, being a hardened and politically
>> correct communist also helped).
>The last point is probably true. Botvinnik was known for being 100% CP
>so I can't see why he should have any problems getting some machine.
>More about this later.
Being world champion chess, so a national hero i guess Botwinnik
would have had no single problem getting hardware to experiment on.
>> Scientists got paid (there were many in the USSR, but their wages
>> couldn't of course buy any consumer goods), the problem was in getting
>> the kit.
>I know enough people who wanted to donate him a machine. He refused. Go
>figure.
>
>Another point: the Kaissa group. They had [at times] the biggest machine
>in the Soviet Union I think.
>
>> To keep his project alive, Botwinnik 'had' to publish thought
>> experiment stuff, give talks, do all the things a Soviet scientist
>> did.
>
>Ok. I can see that talking and adding a lot of crap to your publication
>list helps getting funding 8^) But the crux is that he didn't do that.
>He didn't say "this is the tree we should search", he said "this is the
>tree Pioneer [or Chess Computer Sapiens, which is obviously a cryptic
>joke about CCS ;-)] *does* search". And he said that the program exists.
>And he said that it will beat all other programs within 6 months after
>the "Three positions" article.
The tree pioneer should have produced is terribly crap. No computer will
EVER produce in a position a tree like that.
I have never seen a smart program, only a human can make such a smart tree.
It is a clear falsification. Just like some guys try to falsify
money. I don't see any difference. You make money with both things,
The only difference between the 2 is that for making falsified money
you get into jail.
Suppose i'm a researcher, believed by thousands of people.
Suppose i conclude after a long research that cyankali is good to
have at breakfast. Suppose that these thousands of people believe
me and eat a little cyankali for breakfast...
>Being from Russia is no excuse. The wish to travel to the West is no
>excuse. Being a former World Champion is no excuse.
If you are a former World Champion publishing this crap, then you
only make it worse.
>> CC Sapiens was a program, it just wasn't coded, nor did it have any
>> hardware. The trees were Botwinnik's ideas, not coded, not algorithmically
>> explained, but not necessarily un-functional.
>
>I suggest to look up the definition of "program" in any dictionary.
>Hint: the definition has something to do with "algorithmically
>explained". I thought you know better than that 8^)
>
>> I still think the Berliner attack was unpleasant, and unfitting for
>> a supposedly academic and impartial journal.
>
>I don't want to convince you that it was not. I agree that it was
>unpleasant. But it was needed. Sometimes you have to do unpleasant
>things...
>
>-- Peter
--
+--------------------------------------+
|| email : vdie...@cs.ruu.nl ||
|| Vincent Diepeveen ||
+======================================+
Vincent Diepeveen
In <326AA3...@bellatlantic.net> Len <sun...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>Robert Hyatt wrote:
>> No, my assessment comes from my experience. I'm not a GM, but I have a
>> heck of an understanding of the game of chess from a positional perspective,
>> and I simply see all programs as tactically aware chess players that have so
>> many holes in their positional understanding that they almost look like
>> beginners. Let a GM get interested in your program, study it seriously,
>> and then play it. The results will be way different than at Aegon. It
>> will look more like the Kasparov Deep Blue match after round 1...[Snip]
>
>In my view, today's top programs (especially Rebel 8)
> have the positional judgment of a
>human expert (low 2000s) in closed positions, and play even
>.stronger in semi open and
>open positions. I am a class A player, and I have played
>enough experts OTB to
>recognize this. I am curious why you think they play like
> beginners positionally.
>Sure, I have seen programs make some strange moves,
>but experts make positional blunders
>too.
I can give thousands of examples. But try this first on your strong
positional rebel. Rebel is without doubt the best tournament level
program at the time. Don't forget i'd said that, but have a look
at a position where rebel doesn't know what to do:
If you are even a class C expert you'll know that the move Rebel
produces is a beginners move in nextposition:
black to move. Best move: Qxc3. Very bad move: Qd8. Loosing the game
without chance, where Qxc3 leads to a bad ending, but a lot of draw
chances (hard to win for white). Every class C player or above will
see it after studying the position. Now what about allowing Rebel 8
to think let's say for about 24 hours at a PP200 with 128 MB hashtables?
Diep had the same problem rebel has in this position bye the way, the
reason i tried this position on other programs, so
have a lot of other programs.
It is a beginner's choice. A hard to win ending for white, or an easy to
win middlegame. It is surprising that programs with very little knowledge
play this usually better than programs with more knowledge.
Diep for example is afraid for the exchange because the black bishop at b7
gives more penalty in an endgame. It underestimates the huge tactical problems
black gets after Qd8. So do Rebel and The King. Haven't tried it too long
on the king however. Thought such a great tactician would not underestimate
tactics, but it seems that both Rebel and The King forward prune at least
5 ply (i'm not sure).
white: Kb2,Qc3,Rd1,Bf1,Na4,a2,b3,e5,f4,g2,h4
black: Kg8,Qa5,Rf8,Bb7,Nd7,a6,d5,e6,f7,g7,h7
black to move must make a choice: Qd8?? or Qxc3.
Qxc3 or Qd8 is a strategical choice. A program either plays it or
doesn't play it. The strange thing in this position is that a tactical
strong program at a PP200 with 128 MB hashtables should be able to even
tactically see that Qd8 is terribly loosing.
>Anyway, I don't agree that programs like Rebel 8 have the positional judgment of a
>beginner. In the middlegame, I would say they play tactically at the IM level and
>positionally at the expert to master level depending on the position (open vs. closed).
>
>I cannot say how strong they are in the endgame, but I know
>from experience they play
>above the class A level.
You are tricked by the openingsbook.
The rebel openingsbook is very good. it doesn't allow it to play
positions where it is very bad at.
>Len
Chris Whittington
When will the participants go public on this ?
Salivate - salivate :)
Chris Whittington
Peter W. Gillgasch
Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
> >
> > Ernst A. Heinz (hei...@ira.uka.de) wrote:
> > : In reply to one of Peter's posts Bob wrote:
> > :
> > : > If you want to defend Hans because you are working with him, feel
> > : > free...
> > :
> > : As for Bob's remark above, I would like to state on behalf of the
> > : current "DarkThought" team (Peter left the team in April, so I cannot
> > : speak for him) that we are no longer engaged in any working relation
> > : with Hans Berliner since mid-September 1996 due to mutually
> > : incompatible personalities.
> > :
> > : =Ernst=
> >
> > :)
I don't think its rather sad if you know the whole story so don't throw
smileys around...
> When will the participants go public on this ?
My suggestion is: Never. My lips are sealed. So don't ask.
There is nothing to win for all parties involved and everybody did
loose. Some more than others...
-- Peter
Rolf W. Tueschen
gil...@ilk.de (Peter W. Gillgasch) wrote:
>I don't think its rather sad if you know the whole story so don't throw
>smileys around...
>My lips are sealed. So don't ask.
>There is nothing to win for all parties involved and everybody did
>loose. Some more than others...
>-- Peter
After some reflections with Mr. Bean behind the curtain I finally want
to condolate *Peter*.
Isn't it sad?
Mr. Bean demonstrated how you could speak instead with some other
openings of your body if for some reasons your mouth is closed
forever. Nice performance. But not quite normal.
I would regret if *Peter* could no longer bring us closer to the
*guts* of Hans (the hero who had the guts to reveal everything). For
me his lessons were always very instructive entertainment indeed.
Somewhere in Europe the is an entertainer who can speak with his guts.
No joke. If necessary I'll search for him.
BTW Did I misunderstand s.th. or the word sealed?
Anyway all the best.
Rolf Tueschen
Rolf W. Tueschen
df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) wrote:
> SSDF may not be perfect, but it is at least objective. when you
>say that MCHESS (or some other program's) rating is inflated, that
>presumes some other objective system of measurement. define it,
>implement it, and popularize it.
>--
>don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
About objectivity
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rambling around I found very lately this micro thesis. Because author
of this has high reputation everywhere confusion among the community
should (!) be prevented. :)
Having left the newbie status behind me I want to oppose this remark.
SSDF is a very nice listing but it is not *objective* in the
past/actual presentation. Simply because there are individual and
ressources-guided biases involved.
But I would nevertheless agree that we don't have a better listing at
the moment.
Rolf Tueschen (Nov 14)
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de
In article <84703714...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>, Chris Whittington
<chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Other examples: Distributors and programmers very often write articles
>> about their programArticle Unavailable
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de
In article <55n8he$o...@news.xs4all.nl>X-XS4ALL-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 12:3, Ed
Schroder <rebc...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de
>
>
>Thorsten, my german is fine...
>
>I have told you my opinion about CCS in a private email.
>
You have told me your opinion about CSS in a private mail.
Its CSS not CCS.
But you are right. Also I have no doubt your german is fine.
>It's fine with me if you disagree, no problem.
>
>I respect your opinion, please respect mine.
>
>- Ed -
>
I do. I do.
>
>mcl...@prima.ruhr.de wrote:
>>In article <01bbc91a$0d7625c0$Loca...@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>, "Moritz
Berger"
>><ber...@zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de> writes:
>>
>>>article on page 19, Steinwender has only paraphrased them Article Unavailable
Chris Whittington
> > >
> > > Ernst A. Heinz (hei...@ira.uka.de) wrote:
> > > : In reply to one of Peter's posts Bob wrote:
> > > :
> > > : > free...
> > > :
> > > : As for Bob's remark above, I would like to state on behalf of the
> > > : current "DarkThought" team (Peter left the team in April, so I cannot
> > > : speak for him) that we are no longer engaged in any working relation
> > > : with Hans Berliner since mid-September 1996 due to mutually
> > > : incompatible personalities.
> > > :
> > > : =Ernst=
> > >
> > > :)
>
> smileys around...
>
>
>
> There is nothing to win for all parties involved and everybody did
> loose. Some more than others...
But surely we should know ?
It seems to be an issue.
It obviously relates to some of the (very few) financially
sponsorsed, or acedemically sponsored chess program developments.
Why can't we be told ?
Chris Whittington
>
> -- Peter
>
Bob Archer
> In <326AA3...@bellatlantic.net> Len <sun...@bellatlantic.net>
writes:
>
> >In my view, today's top programs (especially Rebel 8)
> > have the positional judgment of a
> >human expert (low 2000s) in closed positions, and play even
> >.stronger in semi open and
> >open positions. I am a class A player, and I have played
> >enough experts OTB to
> >recognize this. I am curious why you think they play like
> > beginners positionally.
>
This quote started me thinking about the chess ability of programmers.
How necessary is it to be a strong programmer in order to write a strong
chess program? Is playing ability more important than programming
ability?
Bob
--
Bob Archer
Chris Sterritt
In article <567756...@hottub.demon.co.uk>,
Bob Archer <b...@hottub.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>This quote started me thinking about the chess ability of programmers.
>How necessary is it to be a strong programmer in order to write a strong
>chess program? Is playing ability more important than programming
>ability?
The first rule of Expert System programming (a lost art :-) is that
you MUST have an EXPERT!
An example is Deep Blue -- I remember (but correct me if I'm wrong)
that the main programmer/designer (Mr. Hsu?) is NOT a great chess
player (a rating around 1500!). HOWEVER, they have an extremely good
player (name? rating?) ON THE TEAM who tells them what is wrong.
Just like teaching, writing books and managing are genuine skills (and
being good at something DOES NOT mean that you're a good teacher,
manager or explainer), so is programming. So is chess playing. With
a good team, it doesn't need to be all contained in one person.
--chris sterritt
Vincent Diepeveen
In <55spk6$9...@gecko.mrj.com> ster...@mrj.com (Chris Sterritt) writes:
The first few years you don't need a high rating. After
Your program plays a certain level improving your evaluation it
certainly helps if you have a high elorating.
Look at my chessprogram. Would anyone write such a huge evaluation without
rating 2260 like i have within 3 years, that even appears to produce
good moves, and keeps on getting better? I estimate at Diep currently
around 2275-2300 at tournament level. At correspondencelevel probably the
best in the world (except for endgame), just because it knows the difference
between a bad and a good bishop, extensive pawnstructures, and i still
have years to to before i think the knowledge is well enough.
Vincent
brucemo
> Look at my chessprogram. Would anyone write such a huge evaluation without
> rating 2260 like i have within 3 years, that even appears to produce
> good moves, and keeps on getting better? I estimate at Diep currently
> around 2275-2300 at tournament level. At correspondencelevel probably the
> best in the world (except for endgame), just because it knows the difference
> between a bad and a good bishop, extensive pawnstructures, and i still
> have years to to before i think the knowledge is well enough.
What time control would you call "correspondance chess", and is this time
control fast enough for a practical test?
Do you have any evidence that shows that Diep should be declared world champion
by acclaim?
Does Diep play on any of the servers?
bruce
Marc-François Baudot
Robert Hyatt wrote:
> This is news to me. I had a chance to sit and chat with him for bits
> and pieces that totaled a couple of hours in 1983 at the World Computer
> Chess Championship event. He was quite pleasant and even had to come up
> with a plausible explanation for an embarassing situation. Everyone
> expected Belle to win that event (there were two people, Ken Thompson
> and Joe Condon of course.) Dr. Botvinnik brought the winner a small
> prize, two ceremonial drinking "horns" from the USSR. Obviously, he'd
> planned on one for Ken, one for Joe. When we won, he had to quickly
> come up with some way to present these to us without embarassing himself
> by letting everyone know he really thought Belle could win. He offered
> "one horn to the programmers" and "one to Cray Blitz, to be given to
> the guys up at Cray." :) Nice adjustment...
>
> In any case, I've not seen him ridicule anyone personally, and can't speak
> about what I haven't seen... I also talked to Richard Greenblatt many
> years ago and he was also brash in his own way. I suspect many of the
> people that have talked to me might well say the same thing if they don't
> know me very well...
>
Jean-Christophe and myself attended the Maastricht conference in 199?,
where I remember Botvinnik making unpleasant remarks about the intelligence of
chess programmers.
I talked about Botvinnik's program with Grandmaster Anatoli Vaiser Sunday morning
before taking the plane back to Paris. Unfortunately I had spent spent the
whole night drinking and playing billiards with the organizers of the
European rapid chess championship (won by Karpov) and our airplane's captain,
so I might not remember very precisely what he told me. Anyway,
he was at the time very interested in Botvinnik's work on computer chess,
and was even involved in it. He confirmed the necessity to publish things that were
maybe not totally supported by the actual results of his researches to be able to carry on.
He also told me he thought there really was a program, but it played
very weakly and botvinnik was ashamed about that, and of course did not
want the whole world to see what a lousy player his ideas had given birth to.
I'll try to get more information from him next time I see him.
If anybody has precise questions to ask him, I'll be happy to relay them
to Anatloi Vaisser
Marc-Francois
Kai Lübke
Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org (Harald Faber) wrote:
>Hello chrisw # cpsoft.demon.co.uk,
>I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:
>CW> But now, many people (not you though) are turning it into a
>CW> 'I'm buying Rebel, and I'm not buying Mchess' and vice versa type
>CW> silly stuff.
>Sorry, that is not correct. Everybody having an own opinion MAY buy both
>programs to compare on his own like I do. MChessPro5 can't be that high
>rated only by book cooking so it really has to be a strong program. Of
>course I am satisfied to have bought Rebel, but I want to build up my own
>opinion of MChessPro5 and with a price of 75 Deutchmarks there was no time
>to think about that.
Geez, and I payed 169 DM only 6 months ago... ;-(
Shep
Peter W. Gillgasch
Marc-François Baudot <ka...@micronet.fr> wrote:
> Robert Hyatt wrote:
> > This is news to me. I had a chance to sit and chat with him for bits
> > and pieces that totaled a couple of hours in 1983 at the World Computer
> > Chess Championship event. He was quite pleasant and even had to come up
> > with a plausible explanation for an embarassing situation.
For the record I do *not* want to imply that Botvinnik as a person was
not pleasant or whatever. Basically I didn't know him, so I cannot
comment on that and it is not of any interest for me anyway.
> > Everyone
> > expected Belle to win that event (there were two people, Ken Thompson
> > and Joe Condon of course.) Dr. Botvinnik brought the winner a small
> > prize, two ceremonial drinking "horns" from the USSR. Obviously, he'd
> > planned on one for Ken, one for Joe. When we won, he had to quickly
> > come up with some way to present these to us without embarassing himself
> > by letting everyone know he really thought Belle could win. He offered
> > "one horn to the programmers" and "one to Cray Blitz, to be given to
> > the guys up at Cray." :) Nice adjustment...
True.
> > In any case, I've not seen him ridicule anyone personally, and can't speak
> > about what I haven't seen... I also talked to Richard Greenblatt many
> > years ago and he was also brash in his own way. I suspect many of the
> > people that have talked to me might well say the same thing if they don't
> > know me very well...
Of course.
> Jean-Christophe and myself attended the Maastricht conference in 199?,
> where I remember Botvinnik making unpleasant remarks about the
> intelligence of chess programmers.
Yes. As I said I had the pleasure to listen to one of the last lectures
Botvinnik gave. To the best of my knowledge I was the only chess
programmer who was present and I *did* feel pissed. I cannot recall the
exact words. Along the lines of "people too ignorant to play chess
themselves" contributing to the fact that no machine is playing on the
level of the world champion up to now, which will change very soon
because of his own effort. He had most of the audience on his side...
> I talked about Botvinnik's program with Grandmaster Anatoli Vaiser Sunday
> morning before taking the plane back to Paris. Unfortunately I had spent
> spent the whole night drinking and playing billiards with the organizers
> of the European rapid chess championship (won by Karpov) and our
> airplane's captain, so I might not remember very precisely what he told
> me. Anyway, he was at the time very interested in Botvinnik's work on
> computer chess, and was even involved in it. He confirmed the necessity to
> publish things that were maybe not totally supported by the actual results
> of his researches to be able to carry on.
Interesting.
> He also told me he thought there really was a program, but it played very
> weakly and botvinnik was ashamed about that, and of course did not want
> the whole world to see what a lousy player his ideas had given birth to.
Very interesting. Did he back up this idea with some evidence ? Did he
ever see a game played by the program ?
> I'll try to get more information from him next time I see him. If anybody
> has precise questions to ask him, I'll be happy to relay them to Anatloi
> Vaisser
Well, the obvious question is if somebody still works on the program.
-- Peter
Harald Faber
Hello kluebke # mi.uni-koeln.de,
I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:
KL> >course I am satisfied to have bought Rebel, but I want to build up my own
KL> >opinion of MChessPro5 and with a price of 75 Deutchmarks there was no
KL> >time to think about that.
KL>
KL> Geez, and I payed 169 DM only 6 months ago... ;-(
KL> Shep
That's normal if there is out a new version or even in sight.
BTW: the update to MCP6 costs also 75DM. :-)