To Jeroen and interested minds, re. Tiger node count

[chrisw]

Collaborate (the verb) gives, however, samenwerken, coöpereren - which means cooperate, I would imagine. The dictionary I used gave medewerker = employee as the translation of collaborator, but I guess you will want to use whatever data source you can find that agrees with your aggressive and hostile interpretation.

When you are in England again, speaking English, and feeling like starting a fight, use of the noun "collaborator" = "cooperator", or the verb "collaborate" will not be even remotely effective.

Here, on this forum, English is spoken, and English meanings are meant. It is the case that meanings of words can change with time and it may be the case for historical reasons that the noun "collaborator" has taken on a meaning in Dutch that the verb "collaborate" has not, but you know that (a) I am an English speaker, and I explained to you in detail the actual meaning of the word as written, (b) several other English speakers have confirmed the same thing, (c) the context, yet you still are insisting some insult that was never meant. Readers will have assessed already that you operate in a mode that decides on the conclusion first, finds whatever word/data/fact can be twisted to justify the desired conclusion and then refuses to back down in the face of decisive evidence to the contrary. This reader assessment will not bode well for their belief on your 'factual' or 'data' backed statements on other matters.

http://www.mijnwoordenboek.nl/vertalen.php


collaborator(the ~) als in `traitor to one's country`:
landverrader (de ~ (m))
collaborator(the ~) als in `quisling`:
landverrader (de ~ (m))
collaborator(the ~) als in `collaborator`:
collaborateur (de ~ (m)), landverrader (de ~ (m))

When you are in Holland again, use the word a few times addressing Dutch people and see what happens.

[Jeroen]

My point has been resolved, thanks!

No further questions, your honour

[Mike S.]

Jeroen is not in the dock here.

The programmers (of whichever engine) are responsible how their engine counts nodes and what their engine reports to the public and to their customers. That is what this topic is about.

Actually I could imagine more interesting topics It's a pity to see how people waste their time here (including myself; but I am attracted by famous names).

[tiger]

Jeroen is not in the dock here.

The programmers (of whichever engine) are responsible how their engine counts nodes and what their engine reports to the public and to their customers. That is what this topic is about.

Actually I could imagine more interesting topics It's a pity to see how people waste their time here (including myself; but I am attracted by famous names).

Jeroen was free to stay out of it, but decided to step in, and used private information in the hope to divert the attention.



// Christophe

[tiger]

My point has been resolved, thanks!

No further questions, your honour

I was expecting exactly that.

Thank you for your very unfortunate intervention.

You know what? It's not over.



// Christophe

[Jeroen]

Hi Christophe,

Please check your PM's. Let's get this straight as 2 grown ups. I am afraid we are both behaving a little bit like little kids.

Thanks, Jeroen

[Dirt]

Was it the Mad Hatter who said to Alice, "words mean whatever I want them to mean"?

Sounds more like Humpty Dumpty to me.

[Rolf]

Chris W. is absolutely right here...and has expressed it perfectly.
I know Rolf is pressuring you, but you owe no explanantion.

I was convinced Jeroen had a good question. What I expected that either CT admitted or rejected that he also gave wrong numbers in display. That was only interesting in a relational sense. IMO all programmers can do what they want with their output. Only Bob, CT and Norm saw it different. What is correct asks the lay...

Let's set the record straight. I never gave diddly-squat about Rybka's node count, obfuscated or not. I didn't discover the obfuscation. I didn't measure the obfuscation. I didn't verify the obfuscation. None of it mattered to me. So let's get that crap out of the sandbox before we play any more.

Someone asked a simple question "why would one do this?" and I gave a very specific and precise answer I didn't make any accusations. I didn't ask any questions. I didn't run any tests. I just explained _why_ one would want to obfuscate specific output of their engine, nothing more, nothing less. I do have the opinion that if one claims that they searched XXX nodes, then they ought to use the _standard_ definition of "node". Even if there is room to count things more than one way. Because this "room" is still a very small percentage of total nodes.

My only interest is in vocabulary and definitions. Everyone counts a ply the same way, with one known exception. Depth is a bit more variable since you could report it as minum full-width depth, average depth over all branches, or even as a multiple-parameter value like 10/15/30 for min, average and max. Nodes are precisely defined, and not just for computer chess, but for _all_ tree-searching applications including checkers, go, and other problems like the travelling salesman example. If we don't use a common vocabulary, with standard and accepted definitions, then we have problems communicating. Much like the spacecraft launched to either mars or some moon out that way, which landed 10 meters below the surface of the planet because one group was measuring in meters, the other was using feet. The way to avoid that is to use absolutely standard definitions. In math, everyone knows what "floor" means, and "ceil", and "1st derivative" We need the same preciseness here.

hope that clears up where _I_ stand on the issue.

Some days ago I wrote something about military and secret services and you took that as a an absolute nonsense but I had something concrete in mind. And here I can work it in again.

I still think that in military research, academic research with military impact, research in highest interest of State raison, and for example computerchess you cant expect to reveil secrets of actual standings of the research. Just as examples. The military will never exactly tell you the absolute distance of weapons, of photographic resolution from the Space, of the existence of lethal weapons as such. In computerchess competition someone would be a fool if he gave away exact data.

Of course the tournament organisers could order a sort of doping test for all winners, but this would probably mean few püarticipants because the revelation of exact secrets dont make sense for commercial entities.

In times of the leadership of SMK it was similar. In average tournaments Shredder could lose but in Championships with Stefan as operator Shredder one again. Reason: for such tournaments special - non-public, non-tested versions were in use.

Vas has some other tricks and all others have still others. No chance for reveiling standards for the eval output. And it also wouldnt make sense IMO because different versions of the same engine show a completely different eval score. Just look at Rybka 3 and then its sisters R3 Human and R3 Dynamic. MAnsari reported first results that Dynamic has better results in long etime controld. For the same positions the different variants show very different evals! So I would expect that the user learns top understand but he should never take numbers as sort of exact copies of human chess game commentary in Informator style and classical numbers for different standings.

[Rolf]

I'm just waiting for a confirmation that we are going to play with the cards on the table.

I am almost sure you are a better chess player than a poker player. Because with your first reply above, you have actually given the main answer already. Because if Tiger would "like anybody else" simply and normally count nodes which have an (almost) clear definition, as Bob Hyatt has explained, than there would be no need for talk like that...

But I think neither that this is a very interesting question. Also, I do not assume that Vas Rajlich is interested how Tiger counts nodes. But who knows. Anyway, I would not bet on it.

From the user viewpoint, it is of course desireable that any engine (but especially commercial engines) count and report nodes and kN/s in a standard way, if such a quasi or de facto standard exists. We don't want phantasy numbers. But I am afraid the opinions about if such a standard exists and/or if a programmer has to follow it, will be different among different persons.

Contrary to what you think, there are legitimate reasons to count nodes differently.

If Rybka has a legitimate reason to count the way it counts, the offer could be taken by the Rybka team. They must somehow be concerned by the questions about their node counts, as somebody from the team is trying to play it smart by returning the question.

My offer is a sure way to put an end to these questions.



// Christophe

In my eyes someone is wrong and insulting, if he springs on a train where it's discussed why the displayed is obsfucated in Rybka, when he had over years the same practice, and he attacks the Rybka people for his own practice. But the thing gets even worse against the offender, here CT, when in truth their practice isnt unallowed at all. Then this is getting into a smear campaign, what I'm trying to explain since its beginning, that makes only sense if one want to confuse the potential customers of Rybka whose sales have begun.

So the whole campaign isnt childish play among kids but in truth a very dirty activity against the economical interest of Vas Rajlich. Offender is clearly CT.

[Rolf]

My point has been resolved, thanks!

No further questions, your honour

I was expecting exactly that.

Thank you for your very unfortunate intervention.

You know what? It's not over.
// Christophe

I want to make very clear that such aggressive announcements also from most famous programmers, should not be tolerated in CCC. What isnt over yet, CT?? That you have still not apologized to Vas for this campaign?