Anyone here who plays chess?? (aka Houdini "match"

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Houdini
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Anyone here who plays chess?? (aka Houdini "match&a

Post by Houdini » Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:59 am

Robert Flesher wrote:Thanks Martin, again very strange. His hardware must be from the 1960's :wink:
Let's set the game results aside, you run your hardware, and you will see my point. Qd5 is a strange move, that will not be reproduced.
I would not be surprised that the reported difference is because you're not analyzing the same position as everyone else.
After the game continuation 113...b4 114.Ref2 the move 114...Nc4 shown in your analysis is not legal.
Are you analyzing the position after 113...Nxa5?

Edit: You found it out before me.

Edit 2: Congrats to Rolf for being able to lure a serious person into his game...

Robert
Last edited by Houdini on Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:12 am, edited 5 times in total.

Martin Thoresen
Posts: 1833
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:07 pm

Re: Anyone here who plays chess?? (aka Houdini "match&a

Post by Martin Thoresen » Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:59 am

Rolf wrote: I must admit that I thought that the games were automatically played without Martin always nearby.

Please do also trust that my message here wasnt a real threat against Martin. It was (for my English) more a question to all readers here. Therefore I was really surprised that Martin who is zhe host of the suspensive event was so much hurt by my views.

Since R4 remains the same for the rest of the match, at least I see a problem of fairness if you could change your entity in case it might come into trouble. I mean purely chess troubles.

I ask myself how you would react if R4 would be playing on the cluster and you with your 4 cores would be whipped off the board. But this is all in the hands of Martin of course.

Good night.
Rolf,

First, if I am at home I am "always nearby" as my computer is located in my living-room. :)

I was offended by your post because you used the word "rigged" as if I had interfered with the automatic chess somehow.
In the future, if you want to ask a question to a public you don't throw
"accusations" to a named individual with a question mark in the end.

Anyway, I don't understand what you mean by "changing entity".
If you are referring to the computer, it's a normal 6-core computer
which both engines are using = equal hardware.

Best,
Martin

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: Anyone here who plays chess?? (aka Houdini "match&a

Post by Rolf » Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:09 am

Robert Flesher wrote:I think I see the problem! In this position what was played Nxa5 or b4?

[d]3r1r2/3qbpk1/2n1p1p1/Pp2P3/3p1PQp/P2B3P/4R1PB/5R1K b - -



If b4 was played, it was not the position the PGN gave me.My analysis was based on this position : this was clearly my error, my apologies! Damn you Rolf :lol:
I dont know what cause the trouble but I can say for certain that on the 113. move R4 played b4 and NOT Nxa5.

Look, I copied the notation as it is given in my forst message in this thread. When I had entered it I added my comments. So, I gave the original moves. It's above me what you mean here. Anyway if you look throught it then nothing bad did happen. :)

So, in the end, Qd5 was a blunder or what. :)

It's past 3 a.m. in Germany. And that at my age. But then chess is a sport. That cant hurt me, no? It's so nice having t´such a debate right now. Thanks so far. No time for ethics right now, Matt.





[d] 3r1r2/3qbpk1/4p1p1/np2P3/3p1PQp/P2B3P/4R1PB/5R1K w - -


well actually this position

[d]3r1r2/3qbpk1/4p1p1/np2P3/3p1PQp/P2B3P/5RPB/5R1K b - -


From this position you can see why I was befuddled. Qd5 is a real loser!
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

Robert Flesher
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:06 am

Re: Anyone here who plays chess?? (aka Houdini "match&a

Post by Robert Flesher » Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:11 am

Houdini wrote:
Robert Flesher wrote:Thanks Martin, again very strange. His hardware must be from the 1960's :wink:
Let's set the game results aside, you run your hardware, and you will see my point. Qd5 is a strange move, that will not be reproduced.
I would not be surprised that the reported difference is because you're not analyzing the same position as everyone else.
After the game continuation 113...b4 114.Ref2 the move 114...Nc4 shown in your analysis is not legal.
Are you analyzing the position after 113...Nxa5?

Edit: You found it out before me.

Edit 2: Congrats to Rolf for being able to lure a serious person into his game...Robert

Indeed! this is why I apologized. But in my defense, I merely copied the pgn, and then played the game over. When you do this b4 is not played. Live in learn! But, I am sorry I wasted people's time.

User avatar
Houdini
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Anyone here who plays chess?? (aka Houdini "match&a

Post by Houdini » Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:18 am

Robert Flesher wrote:Indeed! this is why I apologized. But in my defense, I merely copied the pgn, and then played the game over. When you do this b4 is not played. Live in learn! But, I am sorry I wasted people's time.
In your defense, Rolf appears to be a very talented über-troll. :lol:

Robert

Robert Flesher
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:06 am

Re: Anyone here who plays chess?? (aka Houdini "match&a

Post by Robert Flesher » Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:28 am

Houdini wrote:
Robert Flesher wrote:Indeed! this is why I apologized. But in my defense, I merely copied the pgn, and then played the game over. When you do this b4 is not played. Live in learn! But, I am sorry I wasted people's time.
In your defense, Rolf appears to be a very talented über-troll. :lol:

Robert

I should have heeded my own advice. I quote myself,
" I suggest the mosquito approach, yes on occasion you slap them, but it's better to avoid that hassle and just use repellent. So in Rolf's case, take it all, "with a grain of salt".

Can I blame the scotch?

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: Anyone here who plays chess?? (aka Houdini "match&a

Post by Rolf » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:42 am

Martin Thoresen wrote:
Rolf wrote: Anyway, I don't understand what you mean by "changing entity".
If you are referring to the computer, it's a normal 6-core computer
which both engines are using = equal hardware.
Best,
Martin
It's interesting that you dont understand.

1. Was the H1.5a always the version that played during the whole tournament? I mean this 'a' added.

2. I read in your details that you would change the older version in case someone would offer an update. Sorry in advance if this is again somehow insulting to question your habits.

3. I know that many testers do this but then I assume that this is an habit for all likewise. But R4 here isnt actually supported IMO and must play with the bugs it brought into it from the beginning. Hey, this is my assumption, I dont know it for sure. So sorry again in advance.

4. So, entity is what I call the program or software that could be changed by authors who observed a bug or anything else. To me this doesnt look fair if others must play with their buggy versions all the tournament through.

5. Since you had a longer technical break the other day, all still during the Division 1 games, a new question comes to mind. But I wont ask it for obvious reasons to be misunderstood.

6. In a general comment on R. H. (H1.5a) funny troll remarks on me, I wished to express my astonishment that people see no problem in the unfair situation of poor R4 who must play without its usual cluster and still managed to become second in Division 1. But contrary to that bias the same people take every critical question as insultive.

Please do all believe me that I dont insult others but I admit that the unfairness is nagging me, especially if it's transmet by "chessbomb" and Susy Polgar. Of course the little tournament is not so important But what people utter towards the ethics of Vas. That is all spit without bigger inhibition. And this is what makes me think. Because I seem the only one almost who sees the unfair in the whole situation. Except someone like Corbit and also Pascutto tries to see both sides.

7. For me it's strange that people get excited if they see a program lose if it's a) actually not supported and b) that must play on ridiculously weak hardware. Because 500 cores is a bit stronger than just 4, 5 or 6 cores.

8. I asked the question if here someone were into chess too because I dont understand why the CCC members dont see the sensation for true elite players who from now on have the chance to let their home analysis checked with such a strong hardware and on top with the cared and hopefully bug-free Rybka on dope! Doesnt it interest people in CCC? Where are the debates? Everything what I can see is propaganda against Vas but no court case in the making. Isnt this bad style?

Thanks anyway, Martin, and yes at the university where I was we also learned to ask short questions with question mark and I had debates with Bob for over a decade now but he never came into trouble about what I could have meant with my weak version of English. He wasnt of my opinion all the time but he never told me at first to learn some better English. It's beyond me why programmers had any difficulty with a weaker language at all because it's all a problem of filtering out some ideosyncrasies.

I see that a new generation has come into CCC and therefore I'd like to explain that a) I come from chess originally and play with programs from the commercial beginnings on, but 2) I enjoy it tremendously that I as a user have the chance here to talk with the programmers too if some more general topics arose. It's sort of interdisciplinary aprroach for me as a psychologist and also expert for the methodology of science and stats in particular.

Bob Hyatt other than most here that I can see is an exceptional master of communication who already answered without the least arrogance even questions from my side as a lay. What else is the academic style? there are no questions that are too stupid, there are only too many folks who fear they could lose some of their glamour if they gave stupid answers. And they misunderstand my often nitpicking questions as part of a war when all what I do is nothing else but seeking some communication right into the middle of my beloved hobby. I still want to learn something and I have no difficultiess at all to show my huge ignorance. Only folks who lack of general education take me for a troll or even über-troll as I could learn tonight from Houdart.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

Paloma
Posts: 1004
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Anyone here who plays chess?? (aka Houdini "match&a

Post by Paloma » Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:52 pm

3.) ... But R4 here isnt actually supported IMO and must play with the bugs it brought into it from the beginning. ...
when Vas the bugs not removed, so is not Martins fault.
so must r4 let beat up :D

btw. The bugs do not affect the strength.

Martin Thoresen
Posts: 1833
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:07 pm

Re: Anyone here who plays chess?? (aka Houdini "match&a

Post by Martin Thoresen » Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:56 pm

Rolf wrote: 1. Was the H1.5a always the version that played during the whole tournament? I mean this 'a' added.
Yes, during the Elite Match the "a" version was the only one playing.
Rolf wrote: 2. I read in your details that you would change the older version in case someone would offer an update. Sorry in advance if this is again somehow insulting to question your habits.
I will only update engines if no event is currently running.
Rolf wrote: 3. I know that many testers do this but then I assume that this is an habit for all likewise. But R4 here isnt actually supported IMO and must play with the bugs it brought into it from the beginning. Hey, this is my assumption, I dont know it for sure. So sorry again in advance.
Well, it is up to each and every engine author to release bugfixes. We all know by now that Vasik isn't the best in this department.
Rolf wrote: 4. So, entity is what I call the program or software that could be changed by authors who observed a bug or anything else. To me this doesnt look fair if others must play with their buggy versions all the tournament through.
See my answer to #3.
Rolf wrote: 5. Since you had a longer technical break the other day, all still during the Division 1 games, a new question comes to mind. But I wont ask it for obvious reasons to be misunderstood.
The reason for the maintenance is clearly stated on my website, in the news section.

If you are implying what I think you are implying, I won't comment on that.

Best,
Martin

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: Anyone here who plays chess?? (aka Houdini "match&a

Post by Rolf » Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:00 pm

Paloma wrote:
3.) ... But R4 here isnt actually supported IMO and must play with the bugs it brought into it from the beginning. ...
when Vas the bugs not removed, so is not Martins fault.
so must r4 let beat up :D

btw. The bugs do not affect the strength.
Of course it is.

Please look for yourself.

Say Martin would play the same tornament in the same facility
but then he would do it all for his own fun
THEN of course he would have no criticism at all.

But we have a different design. The event show match, call it what you prefer, is transmitted from Martin to the famous website ChessBomb who transmit normally Wch matches and something like Tata where the World elite players were playing.

More, Martin is also transmitting his tournament to Suzy Polgar who has one of the biggest info shops on the internet (for regular chess so to speak) and she is now presenting the Martin event exactly like she did it for the Tata.

Well, at such a moment it should be allowed to ask some questions about fairness and I answer that, no, it's not fair, if all other entries get support from their home families except Rybka. But Rybka is the undoubtably strongest engine on the planet.

Why taking Rybka at all? Answer for me is clear: R4 might be the best but not so for Martin. That is the basic message and the results are proving it in absolute clarity.

Was it announced in time that Martin held this event right now?


In science there is a clean principle of methods.

Someone makes a claim, explains how he will test it and then starts the description of the details. So that critics have all chances to step in.

Only if everything was kosher, then a result or a theory could be trusted. Otherwise commentary would be it's all just artefacts.

Of course Martin is no scientist and must not care about scientifical design but why his tournament gets such a publicity? It were only justified in a logical sense if at lease the conditions for all players would be comparable. This isnt the case for Rybka.

Let me show you the background. As far as I had understood the situation with the best program and all the possible copy versions and recompilations, the bugs are a minimum of security for the author of the top program. He found the best solution in reserving his best version for the internet offer with best hardware of course.

Since there are people in our scene who misbehave and publish every secret for free, it's a logical defense if the best business author keeps something for himself and that functions only if he leaves something imperfect in his program because that leaves a waterprint like signature in every illegal copy.

The Americans know the old saying Fool me once etc. Ignoring the criminal misbehavior in our community is a fatal mistake. If the personal creativity of our best team captains is taken under attack, time of naive approaches has gone. Some precaution must be found.

Martin for one behaves as if he never even heard of the new development. If he had, he could not have planned a worldwide transmission of a play in his private room with a not supported engine of the best program on the planet.

Martin is absolutely allowed to do what he wants, but it must also be allowed to point out the weaknesses of his approach and therefore diagnosing his event as meaningless.

I was absent for almost 2 years and therefore I missed the debates about the end of the Hippos and then the rise of Houdini. Could someone please give me the links for a certainly issue of debates about the legal problems of all that? Because I prefer to base my judgement on expert opinions as a lay in CC tech. Thanks and all the best to all members.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

Post Reply