Comet B22 stronger !

[Thorsten Czub]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Thorsten Czub at 31 May 2000 00:36:16:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 30 May 2000 22:08:56:

Just wanted to see you incisive analysis on print. That's all.
Best wishes...
Mogens

look - you believe in a königsweg, in a special thing that helps you
to look through.
i believe that we can all together find out about something and
anybody can contribute, and no one has the god-alike advise.
the game is open, anybody can replay it himself. even fritz can value or
comment on it.
automatically. over night. without any brain involved.
when somebody gives me a hint how to tune my car, or to make it eat less fuel,
i just try it out, and if it works, i am fine.
if frank quisi tells me i should download cometB22 and it plays pretty strong,
i try to tell the others, in the same way i would tell my friends
how to tune their cars to make the eat less fuel too.
easy - isn't it.
no königsweg.
no gods.
just simple sharing positive experience.

[Thorsten Czub]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Thorsten Czub at 31 May 2000 00:49:23:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 30 May 2000 22:23:20:

I agree with what you're saying. My point of view is that strength is determined through a sufficient (as many as possible) amount of games against a program of "known" strength.
If you want to improve the program and maybe make it stronger, then you can analyse the individual games one by one. Hopefully, you're able to recognize mistakes or miscalculations that are inherent to certain positions and correct them.
If I were to write a program that would be my approach. Then if someone told me that my program was getting stronger based on one game, I would probably ask the person in question to try another x number of games and get back to me.
Best wishes...
Mogens

this is imo nonsense.
people can tell you exactly which wine they have drunken
by only tasting a small amount of it. i have seen people beeing able
to measure water or coke just by drinking from it, and they can do this
in a range of a single 1/500 of a pound.
the human ability of recognizing patterns is much better than the ability
to understand data logically.
when you "measure" your strength you get , lets say 200 events.
like throwing a coing into the air, right ?
you get 200 coin throws.
in the end, 100 bring the one side, and 100 bring the other side.
now you make the assumption that when you play 200 games
of chess, you get 200 events.
and 100 games white won, and 100 games black won.
so you tell me "exactly" or "precise" about the strengh.
you have not seen the games. you only made your conclusion by
seeing the result, let's say 100:100.
how brilliant. you know the "strength" of the program A and you
get 100-100 and now you are capable of
telling me the elo of program B.
you need 200 events !!!!!
i tell you that any human beeing can be much more precise
in almost any are or field in looking for less than 200 events.
i guess 20 is enough.
look. when i watch a game, e.g. between comet and wchess, i get
49 moves that give at least 98 events.
in fact i am getting more events because i correlate the WHEN
something happens too.
so in fact watching ONE game, i get almost the same amount
number of events, ok - few less - and so i should be able to
be as precise as you.
why shall i wait for 200 games, when 1 or 20 give me as much events ?!
the most important data comes from watching the games live.
then you can correlate the WHEN of the main-lines. not only the
WHAT in the main-lines counts. it counts WHEN the moves have been seen,
in correlation to the opponent.
whatever.

[pete]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: pete at 31 May 2000 04:42:26:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: Thorsten Czub at 31 May 2000 00:29:54:

What is your point I ask myself ?
I could continue like this and let it either finish in a nice or a nasty way .
Why is it so important for you to be special is the obvious question ?
If you post an analysis of the game I think you will find many friendly people willing to discuss your impression , but all this know this know that is simply a little boring
Either : you know everything best for yourself ; then it is absolutely meaningless to discuss it in a public forum unless sometimes to remind people how great you are or you want to share and learn ; then at least you should try .
regards.
pete

my point is, that if it would NOT work, i mean , to
i mean, practise refutes your ideas how it works.
of course. if you like such a kind of reflection.
for me only one thing counts: is it working.
if something is not working , i let it.
i am not doing this here for narcistic reasons.
the only goal is that it makes fun.
but it should be allowed, in a discussion where somebody
mentions that it is NOT working, to claim that it has worked (from
my point of view) so far. i remember that without doing lots of swedish-
autoplayer series it was easy to register the strength of
phalanx or zarkov or hiarcs or chess-tiger or or or or.
if you find the autoplayer more useful, ok - use it.
but don't tell me that it is not working my way.
so my point is that i have generated enough evidence for myself to make
sure THAT it works.
and it may be allowed to critisize the fact that somebody claims
that "my way" is not possible when in fact i have done it lots of time
and it works.

who says this.
i am working in secret normally. it takes 1/2 year or years until
the thing i am working on is coming on the market. normally
nobody knows about the stuff. i am not interested in letting you know.
i am in no way special. that exists in your mind.
anybody could do it. it's primitive observation. i guess i do have much
time, others maybe don't have.
we talked about programs and testing methods. you want to make
it a dialogue about narcistic behaviour. good for you. but for me
this is off-topic.

any chessplayer can replay games himself.
for analysis use fritz6.
it is capable of analysing a game. should be enough for most of the
chess players.

look. i don't need to remind you on anything.
i wanted to show or put the finger on the fact that - yes - that i know
or have recognized that comet b22 is ok.
i thought maybe somebody would be interested in finding
out himself. maybe interpret it as a kind of hint.
but stop your foolish discussion about what to post and how to post.
an open forum is open. this means anybody can post anything.
and neither you, nor me, have the right to value other peoples post.
doing this shows only lack of tolerance and nettiquette, as you do.

if you want to behave intolerant, please do it. but please
not in a chess forum. if you are different opinion about comet b22
you can tell us here. maybe with evidence. but discussions like you
do are off-topic.
and neither your bad style nor your anonymous name may hide you
from outing this.

Probably here is the best step to walk in again : in no way did _I_ want to express an idea how it works ; maybe this was the major misunderstanding here .
so far fine with me .
and here starts the point where I disagree . The evidence isn't that you are "Thorsten Czub " saying this or I am "Peter Berger" to say that it is because of arguments shared . This is what discussions are about . I think both quantitative and qualitative arguments are interesting but claiming : " This engine is strong because I say it " is _much_ less interesting to me .
I more or less can follow this and apologize here .
Yes , this is true but usually Fritz doesn't post here or express opinions about its opponents other than " I can handle backward pawn " And as you mention your good knowledge in judging engine strength it would be interesting to know where are interesting points in the game which made _you_ think this way . Then everyone can judge for himself or add a different opinion .

I had a problem with your post and asked questions and expressed a ( maybe a little harsh ) opinion , you answered ; if it is about netiquette I have written friendlier posts and more unfriendly ones : it seems to me you over-react a little here .
You said : "Comet B22 is strong as I saw it play in one game ." I am interested in this kind of judgement as I often tend to make similar judgements which are sometimes right , sometimes wrong .
So for me for example it is interesting to find out about critical points in games . More often than not it happened to me that a fast judgement proved wrong or superficial later .
You gave an opinion without any acceptable evidence but ( literally ) said : " I could post the evidence anytime I wanted . " This was a little frustrating for me as it would have been more interesting discussing your thoughts than your final conclusion .
Style , tolerance , shmanet . Discussing this will bring just another of those useless fighting threads so popular in chess forums and I am already very unhappy I helped creating another useless one . When it is about anonymous names I would like to clarify : I like this nickname and it it most simple to find out my real name and residence by simply putting your mouse on top of it .
No need to do it multiple times ; once will be enough

[Gábor Szõts]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Gábor Szõts at 31 May 2000 07:52:04:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Comet B22 stronger ! geschrieben von: / posted by: Thorsten Czub at 30 May 2000 21:20:42:

I let Comet B.21 and B.22 play against each other a 20-game match under the following conditions:
Pentium 166, 32 MB RAM
G/5, 4 MB for hash
Result: 10-10 (8-8-4)
Nevertheless, Comet has been making quite a progress recently, and B.22 is clearly better than B.18, let alone B.12.

you get 10-10 and what is your conclusion: that there is NO
progress at all ?
yes. for sure.
but i see not much sense it letting comet play against comet.

You can't expect much progress from one version to the next. From a blitz 10-10 you can only infer that the newer version is not significantly worse (which might be the case due to something overlooked by the programmer).
You are about right. The match served only the above mentioned purpose.

[Gábor Szõts]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Gábor Szõts at 31 May 2000 08:21:37:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: Thorsten Czub at 31 May 2000 00:49:23:

I agree with what you're saying. My point of view is that strength is determined through a sufficient (as many as possible) amount of games against a program of "known" strength.

this is imo nonsense.
people can tell you exactly which wine they have drunken
by only tasting a small amount of it. i have seen people beeing able
to measure water or coke just by drinking from it, and they can do this
in a range of a single 1/500 of a pound.
the human ability of recognizing patterns is much better than the ability
to understand data logically.

(snip)
When you taste wine, you can judge it from a mouthful, because it is always the same wine.
When you judge a chess program, one look at a game is not enough, because every position is different, and the program usually doesn't handle them all with the same effectiveness. And it is definitely not worth 2x40 positions: misjudgement in one position often will continue through several moves.
I agree that you don't have to watch hundreds of games. But you have to watch several types of positions, since opponents will not be kind enough to play in the style you like best.

[Dann Corbit]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Dann Corbit at 31 May 2000 09:29:23:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: Gábor Szõts at 31 May 2000 08:21:37:

I agree with what you're saying. My point of view is that strength is determined through a sufficient (as many as possible) amount of games against a program of "known" strength.

this is imo nonsense.
people can tell you exactly which wine they have drunken
by only tasting a small amount of it. i have seen people beeing able
to measure water or coke just by drinking from it, and they can do this
in a range of a single 1/500 of a pound.
the human ability of recognizing patterns is much better than the ability
to understand data logically.

(snip)
When you taste wine, you can judge it from a mouthful, because it is always the same wine.
When you judge a chess program, one look at a game is not enough, because every position is different, and the program usually doesn't handle them all with the same effectiveness. And it is definitely not worth 2x40 positions: misjudgement in one position often will continue through several moves.
I agree that you don't have to watch hundreds of games. But you have to watch several types of positions, since opponents will not be kind enough to play in the style you like best.

An even greater danger (I think) is to read genius into lunacy. A program can, on more than one occasion [no doubt, exactly those you choose to scan in detail] choose a very brilliant move for completely wrong reasons. Stumbling onto a good move is not unique to humans. It happens all the time with computers.
We, as humans, see the brilliancy after analyzing in detail, and assume that the program knew from the start.


My FTP site

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 31 May 2000 09:42:19:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: Thorsten Czub at 31 May 2000 00:36:16:

look - you believe in a königsweg, in a special thing that helps you
to look through.
i believe that we can all together find out about something and
anybody can contribute, and no one has the god-alike advise.
the game is open, anybody can replay it himself. even fritz can value or
comment on it.
automatically. over night. without any brain involved.
when somebody gives me a hint how to tune my car, or to make it eat less fuel,
i just try it out, and if it works, i am fine.
if frank quisi tells me i should download cometB22 and it plays pretty strong,
i try to tell the others, in the same way i would tell my friends
how to tune their cars to make the eat less fuel too.
easy - isn't it.
no königsweg.
no gods.
just simple sharing positive experience.

I'll make one more comment in this thread, since nothing I say seem to appeal to your idea of reason and I'm starting to repeat myself. First of all, let's make one thing clear. You are allowed to have all the opinions you want about every percievable thing in this world and so am I. However, this isn't a question of opinion, but of you stating that "CometB22 stronger" based on a single game. Of course this could be an opinion, but judgeing from your argumentation, or lack of it, that doesn't appear to be the case. Opinion or fact, you still haven't been able to justify your claim so far. Not even a GM would make such a cathegorical statement based on a single game. Since you haven't been able to demonstrate your analytical capabilities, I find your statement completely useless to most people.
As regarding the measurement of strength. You're entitled to divide according to your own categories. Something like; very weak, weaker, weak, medium, strong and stronger I would imagine. However, the general perception of strength, right or wrong, is attached to the concept of ELO. This is calculated according to the strengths of your opponents and the number of games you play against each of them. I find that ELO is more reliable than "It's stronger" terminology.
That basically sums it up. The qualitative approach has it merits, but it can't stand alone. It's very useful as a followup to the quantitative analysis, or to check the effect of grand scale ideas when developing your program. That's my opinions anyway. Take it or leave it.
Best wishes...
Mogens

[Thorsten Czub]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Thorsten Czub at 31 May 2000 12:25:14:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: pete at 31 May 2000 04:42:26:

and here starts the point where I disagree . The evidence isn't that you are "Thorsten Czub " saying this or I am "Peter Berger" to say that it is because of arguments shared . This is what discussions are about . I think both quantitative and qualitative arguments are interesting but claiming : " This engine is strong because I say it " is _much_ less interesting to me .
And as you mention your good knowledge in judging engine strength it would be interesting to know where are interesting points in the game which made _you_ think this way . Then everyone can judge for himself or add a different opinion .
I had a problem with your post and asked questions and expressed a ( maybe a little harsh ) opinion , you answered ; if it is about netiquette I have written friendlier posts and more unfriendly ones : it seems to me you over-react a little here .
So for me for example it is interesting to find out about critical points in games . More often than not it happened to me that a fast judgement proved wrong or superficial later .
You gave an opinion without any acceptable evidence
but ( literally ) said : " I could post the evidence anytime I wanted . " This was a little frustrating for me as it would have been more interesting discussing your thoughts than your final conclusion .
Style , tolerance , shmanet . Discussing this will bring just another of those useless fighting threads so popular in chess forums and I am already very unhappy I helped creating another useless one .
When it is about anonymous names I would like to clarify : I like this nickname and it it most simple to find out my real name and residence by simply putting your mouse on top of it .
No need to do it multiple times ; once will be enough

i don't understand what you want. i publish the pgn-notations of my tournament
in many newsgroups and also in gambit and oxford-softworks forum.
sometimes here.
my observations in the games have been made during the game.
i let it to you to replay the game yourself.
it is very difficult and time costing to write down all the different
observations you get in each position of a game.
often it is the WHEN that is important. to document that you would need
the output of any program and also you would have to correlate
the data and to comment on it. this is too much for to do.
especially when most of the time you post there come 4 idiots pissing on
you. so - why commenting when it produces only frustrating
experiences ? i have seen it. i know it . and i don't have to document
it to anybody else. post the games. people can replay it. even let fritz
analyze it and they have comments fritz-alike.
the level they want is the level they get.
>Yes , this is true but usually Fritz doesn't post here or express opinions about its opponents other than " I can handle backward pawn "
but that is the level the people want.
if the people would want a higher level than computerschach + spiele
or big-brother or BILD-Zeitung, i guess they would ask for.
they don't.
in fact they give their best to lower the level. and of course:
the magazins and media give their best to lower the level too.
as a result, you have a society only interested in results, and nobody
else interested in content.
a meaningless world. where anything has its price. and thats it.

as i told you, i will not anymore do this.
from time to time i do comment on something. as e.g. in the moment
the game cstal - junior . but it takes to much time and work to document
something i see in a second while watching the game. language is very very
redundant.
might be. i do overreact because the whole day when you post there come idiots.
so in fact as a result you do not say anything anymore, and just post the
single games. without any comments or documentation. this is a result
of the style in the forums and the newsgroups. that stalkers piss on those
who really post something with content. these stalkers destroy
the community. and imo the only way getting rid of them, without destroying
the society or the common agreement of culture is to delete them.

i do understand this.
an opinion needs no evidence. if you want to get evidence
work as a lawyer.
or as a judge. but in a newsgroup people discuss about many other
things than about evidence.
look. we have many people beeing frightened. beeing anonymous. they misuse
freedom and tolerance of social community others produce. they are somehow (a/un)social because they want to destroy or misuse what others have build in agreement.
you see those guys of people anywhere. they stand on bridges and throw stones
on people. just for nothing. just because they feel boring.
i know a guy or at least a hand full who destroys newsgroups. people sometimes
like to destroy. they do not have good feelings and the only feeling they still can produce is destroying things others have made or agreed about.
the more anonymous a society gets, the more these people get relevant.
thats what happends in internet.

ok.
maybe next time i will comment and document the obervations. when i have the feeling that it makes sense. if not - it gets only bits and bytes and beans.

[Thorsten Czub]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Thorsten Czub at 31 May 2000 12:33:50:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: Dann Corbit at 31 May 2000 09:29:23:

An even greater danger (I think) is to read genius into lunacy.
A program can, on more than one occasion [no doubt, exactly those you choose to scan in detail] choose a very brilliant move for completely wrong reasons.
Stumbling onto a good move is not unique to humans. It happens all the time with computers.
We, as humans, see the brilliancy after analyzing in detail, and assume that the program knew from the start.

nobody is doing this. history is full of people beeing lunatic and they have been elected as major leaders. why ?!
this here is only about a chess program. give an example if i have done wrong.
i have not said comet was genius. all i said is: i have the idea this version
is better.
you would recognize this by watching and correlating main lines and evals.
whatever you want.
the way you argue cannot be refuted. it is to general.

[Thorsten Czub]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Thorsten Czub at 31 May 2000 13:42:51:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 31 May 2000 09:42:19:

Of course this could be an opinion, but judgeing from your argumentation, or lack of it, that doesn't appear to be the case. Opinion or fact, you still haven't been able to justify your claim so far.
Not even a GM would make such a cathegorical statement based on a single game.
Since you haven't been able to demonstrate your analytical capabilities, I find your statement completely useless to most people.
As regarding the measurement of strength. You're entitled to divide according to your own categories. Something like; very weak, weaker, weak, medium, strong and stronger I would imagine. However, the general perception of strength, right or wrong, is attached to the concept of ELO. This is calculated according to the strengths of your opponents and the number of games you play against each of them.
I find that ELO is more reliable than "It's stronger" terminology.
That basically sums it up. The qualitative approach has it merits, but it can't stand alone.
It's very useful as a followup to the quantitative analysis,
or to check the effect of grand scale ideas when developing your program. That's my opinions anyway. Take it or leave it.
Best wishes...
Mogens

nobody needs to justify opinions.
nonsense.
GM can even more than this. a position is enough.
the question is: when you find my statements useless, why do you
read them and further more: why do you comment on them, endlessly,
and with strange point of views about how to do this or that.
if you find them useless: don't read them . nobody forces you to read.
nor to click on them. let it. it's better for you. you cannot learn
by example. you are not willing and not capable to do the transfer step.
Consumer. wants anything to be consumed and brought on a golden tableau.
the concept is not measuring strength. it is measuring elo.
elo is not strength. it is something else. when you measure IQ, you do
not measure intelligence or intellect, you measure what some people CALL
intelligent.
YOU may find it. YOU may click on the post that interest you. YOU may do it.
you may study ssdf-lists without replaying the games.
study your numbers. if they interest you. i am not interested in your kind
of numbers or beans. count them.- endlessly. but do it. and do it now. please.
nobody said that this is the case.
quantitative is very useful as a followup to the qualitatity analysis. right.
i leave it as it is. bean-counting syndrom. count the stars. there are enough
to count.

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 31 May 2000 14:56:25:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: Thorsten Czub at 31 May 2000 13:42:51:
Well, I might just give another try.

nobody needs to justify opinions.
nonsense.
GM can even more than this. a position is enough.
the question is: when you find my statements useless, why do you
read them and further more: why do you comment on them, endlessly,
and with strange point of views about how to do this or that.
if you find them useless: don't read them . nobody forces you to read.
nor to click on them. let it. it's better for you. you cannot learn
by example. you are not willing and not capable to do the transfer step.
Consumer. wants anything to be consumed and brought on a golden tableau.
the concept is not measuring strength. it is measuring elo.
elo is not strength. it is something else. when you measure IQ, you do
not measure intelligence or intellect, you measure what some people CALL
intelligent.
YOU may find it. YOU may click on the post that interest you. YOU may do it.
you may study ssdf-lists without replaying the games.
study your numbers. if they interest you. i am not interested in your kind
of numbers or beans. count them.- endlessly. but do it. and do it now. please.
nobody said that this is the case.
i leave it as it is. bean-counting syndrom. count the stars. there are enough
to count.

Maybe, but it adds credibility if you're able to explain the reasons of your opinion. You say that a program is stronger based on a single game. I ask how you're able to tell and I don't receive a credible answer. This renders an otherwise interesting opinion useless.
No, it isn't.
You really excell at writing unconnected sentences without meaning. I don't think my opinions or points of view are that strange, especially compared to yours. You can't explain why you think CometB22 is stronger. That's okay if you admit it, but you obviously don't intend to.
Test positions would be correct analogy to IQ tests. ELO is a measurement of comparative strength and perfectly legitimate as far as I'm concerned.
Thank you, but what's your point. How does it relate to your lack of analytical capabilities.
You said that the qualitative approach used on one game was enough. Are you changing your mind?
Fortune cookie quotes and bad analogies sadly doesn't impress me that much.
Best wishes...
Mogens

[Gábor Szõts]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Gábor Szõts at 31 May 2000 15:11:49:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: Thorsten Czub at 31 May 2000 13:42:51:

I find that ELO is more reliable than "It's stronger" terminology.

you may study ssdf-lists without replaying the games. i am not interested in your kind of numbers or beans.

Hello Thorsten,
Look, even those - of us - , who sometimes take a look at the SSDF list, do watch and replay games. We obtain pleasure the same way that you do.
Does that mean that the Elo system has no merit? No. It is an - admittedly imperfect - measure of quality: the better you play the more points you get. It is needed for a number of technical reasons. Just like money: it may be an imperfect measure of value but it is needed for practical reasons.
And that is why statistics and beans are needed.
Regards,
Gábor

[Thorsten Czub]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Thorsten Czub at 31 May 2000 16:55:24:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 31 May 2000 14:56:25:

Maybe, but it adds credibility if you're able to explain the reasons of your opinion. You say that a program is stronger based on a single game. I ask how you're able to tell and I don't receive a credible answer. This renders an otherwise interesting opinion useless.
You really excell at writing unconnected sentences without meaning. I don't think my opinions or points of view are that strange, especially compared to yours. You can't explain why you think CometB22 is stronger.
Test positions would be correct analogy to IQ tests. ELO is a measurement of comparative strength and perfectly legitimate as far as I'm concerned.
Thank you, but what's your point. How does it relate to your lack of analytical capabilities.
Fortune cookie quotes and bad analogies sadly doesn't impress me that much.
Best wishes...
Mogens

Nonsense. My citroen drives more comfortable than your whatever.
I don't need to justify this nor show evidence. the evidence
is in the car. so the evidence is in the game. look. and remain silent.
you can discuss much about suspension. but when you have ever
sitten in a citroen you will understand. talks cannot change the world.
only experience.
wrong. i do not want to explain it to you. it is not written for bean-counters.
this is an open forum. ok - i cannot forbid you to misunderstand my posts.
nor to read them. but i can resign to explain to you. because explaining
to you makes no sense. you don't want to understand. you have your ideas
about measuring and about how world works, and thats it.
i have different point of views. measure your wine - if you want -
i drink it.
as far as you are concerned. but you are not concernced. you repeat what
others say. and what others say is what is common. what all do.
and when it comes to understand, you refute to. you still quote
what "it is said" . but this is unimportant. what counts is not what
the mass thinks what could be the right thing, thats shallow repeating
of what others have said. follow. count. repeat. thats what you are for.
it needs people to swim with the stream, so that others can swim against it.
if you believe you can find out about chess programs by letting them play against each other and add the results into a flip-chart and "measuring" elo,
than ok - your problem. feel free to follow this path.
))
i have no lack of "analytical capabilities".

Sesamestreet. count it. its what children have to learn too.
count and measure it all. maybe it makes you wise.

[Richard Burkley]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Richard Burkley at 01 June 2000 12:23:51:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Maybe, maybe not. geschrieben von: / posted by: Thorsten Czub at 31 May 2000 16:55:24:
Und hier startet den Punkt, wo ich nicht übereinstimme. Die Beweise sind nicht, dass Sie „ Thorsten Czub“ sind und dieses sagen, oder ich „Peter Berger“ bin, um zu sagen, dass es wegen geteilten Argumenten ist. Dies ist die Diskussionen, die da sind. Ich denke, dass sowohl quantitative als auch qualitative Argumente interessieren, aber behaupten: „Diese Maschine ist stark, weil ich es sage, „ist viel weniger zu mir interessieren. Ich verstehe nicht, was Sie wollen. Ich herausgebe die Pgn Notationen von meinem Turnier in vielem newsgroups und auch in Schachzug und Oxford-softworks Forum. Manchmal hier. Meine Beobachtungen in den Spielen sind während des Spiels gemacht worden. Ich ließ es zu Ihnen, um zu wiederholen, d bereit Sie selbst.
Es ist sehr schwierig und zu messen, kostend, alle die verschiedenen Beobachtungen in jede Position eines Spiels aufzuschreiben, die Sie bekommen. Oft ist es d Wenn, das wichtig ist. Um zu dokumentieren, dass Sie die Ausgabe jedes Programms brauchen würden, und auch Sie die Daten zueinander in Beziehung setzen würden und es kommentieren müssen. Dies ist zuviel für zu tun. Besonders Wenn, die meiste Zeit, die Sie dort anschlagen, kommen 4 Idioten, die auf Ihnen pissen. So produziert, warum man kommentiert, wenn es, nur frustrierende Erfahrungen? Ich habe es gesehen. Ich wisse es. Und ich muss es nicht zu irgend jemand anderem dokumentiere. Schlagen Sie die Spiele an. Leute können es wiederholen. Sogar lassen Sie Fritz es analysieren, und sie haben Kommentare Fritz ähnlich. Die Ebene, die sie wollen, ist die Ebene, die sie bekommen. Dies ist, ja, wahr, aber Fritz hier schlägt an oder drückt aus normalerweise keine Meinungen über seine Opponenten, ausser „ich Bauern zurücken behandeln kann“ Aber das ist die Ebene, die Leute wollen.
Wenn die Leute eine höhere Ebene wollen würden, als Computerschach + Spiele oder großer Bruder oder Bild-Zeitung, ich Annahme, nach der sie fragen würde. Sie tun es nicht. In der Tat geben sie ihr bestes, die Ebene zu senken. Und natürlich: des Magazins und die Medien geben ihr bestes, die Ebene auch zu senken.
Als ein Ergebnis haben Sie eine Gesellschaft an Ergebnissen und niemand anderem, die an Inhalt interessiert sind, nur interessiert. Eine bedeutungslose Welt. Wo hat irgend etwas seinen Preis. Und das ist es. Und, da Sie erwähnen, dass Ihr gutes Wissen beim Halten der Maschinenstärke dafür interessant zu wissen wäre, sind wo interessante Punkte im Spiel, das du dazu brachte, diesen Weg zu denken? Dann kann jeder eine andere Meinung für sich beurteilen oder hinzufügen. Da ich Sie sagte, tue ich dieses nicht mehr. Dann und wann ich kommentiere etwas. so z.B. im Moment das mutige CSTal - Junior. Aber es nimmt zu viel Zeit und der Arbeit, um etwas zu dokumentieren, ich sehe eine Sekunde hinein, während ich das Spiel beobachte. Sprache ist sehr überflüssig. Ich hatte ein Problem mit Ihrem Pfosten und Fragen stellte und drückte aus ein (vielleicht etwas streng) Meinung, Sie antwortete; wenn es über Netzwerketikette ist, habe ich freundlichere Pfosten und mehr unfreundliche geschrieben: es scheint zu mir Sie reagieren hinüber etwas hier. Könnte sein. Ich reagiere übertrieb, weil den ganzen Tag, wenn Sie dort anschlagen, kommt Idioten. So in der Tat als ein Ergebnis sagen Sie nicht mehr irgend etwas und schlagen gerade die einzelnen Spiele an. Ohne jeden Kommentar oder jede Dokumentation. Dies ist ein Ergebnis des Stils in den Foren und dem newsgroups. dass Pirschjäger auf jenen pissen, die wirklich etwas mit Inhalt anschlagen. Diese Pirschjäger zerstören die Gemeinschaft. Und im der, der von ihnen befreit wird, ohne die Gesellschaft oder die Gemeinsamkeit zu zerstören, Vereinbarung von Kultur soll sie löschen. Also, für mich, ist zum Beispiel es interessant, die Information über kritische Punkte in Spielen zu finden. Häufiger als nicht es Happen mit mir, dass sich ein schnelles Urteil später als falsch oder oberflächlich erwies. Ich verstehe dieses. Sie geben eine Meinung ohne jeden akzeptablen Beweis eine Meinung braucht keine Beweise. Wenn Sie die Beweisarbeit als ein Rechtsanwalt bekommen wolle. Oder als ein Richter. Aber in einem newsgroup erörtern Leute über viele andere Dinge, als über Beweise. Aber gesagt (buchstäblich): „Ich konnte die Beweise jederzeit anschlagen, ich wollte. „ Dies war etwas frustrierend für mich, da es interessanter gewesen und Ihre Gedanken erörtert wäre, als Ihr letzter Schluss. Stil, Toleranz, dieses zu erörtern, bringt gerade einen anderen von jenen nutzlosen Kampfstreifen so beliebt in Schach Foren und ich sind schon sehr unglücklich ich half, eine andere nutzlose zu schaffen. Blick. Wir haben viele Leute, die beging erschreckte. Beging anonym. Sie Missbrauchsfreiheit und Toleranz von sozialen Gemeinschaften anderen produzieren. Sie sind irgendwie (ein/die UN) Gesellschaftsabend, weil sie zerstören oder missbrauchen wollen, was andere haben, einbauen in Übereinstimmung. Sie sehen jene Typen von Leuten irgendwo. Sie stehen auf Brücken und werfen Steine auf Leuten. Gerade für nichts. Direkt weil, sie sich langweilig fühlen. Ich kenne einen Typen oder wenigstens eine Hand voll wer zerstört newsgroups. Leute zerstören manchmal gerne. Sie haben keine guten Gefühle und d, nur zu meinen, dass sie immer noch produzieren können, ist Dinge zu zerstören andere haben gemacht oder übereingestimmt. Anonymer eine Gesellschaft bekommt, mehr diese Leute werden relevant. Was im Internet. Wenn es über anonyme Namen ist, würde ich gerne klären: Ich mag diesen Spitznamen und es meiste, die einfach sind, meinen wirklichen Namen und meine wirkliche Residenz durch einfaches Auflegen Ihrer Maus herauszufinden, übertreffen davon.
Nein, muss es tun mehrfache Zeiten; einmal wird genug sein; Genehmigen etwa nächstes Mal ich kommentiere und dokumentiere das obervations. Wenn ich habe das Gefühl, dass es Bedeutung hat. Wenn nicht bekommt es nur Stücke und Bytes und Bohnen.