| |
Main
Date: 17 Aug 2007 13:52:16
From: Dave
Subject: Statistical significance of score differences - new release of ChessDB
|
I've made a new release of ChessDB, a chess database based on Scid from
Shane Hudson. There is a fork too of ChessDB from the lying
plagiarist Pascal Georges who passes of work of mine as his own, as I
have documented at:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.chess.computer/browse_frm/thread/658a58d9a17b9aaf/dcb9e3c5e4e7266a?lnk=st&q=scid+released&rnum=1&hl=en#dcb9e3c5e4e7266a
Anyway, the main reason for my post it to introduce a new feature in
ChessDB and I would be interested in comments from others about this.
Basically ChessDB has a tree window, like many databases (Scid,
ChessBase, Chess Assistant etc). But I've added code that will determine
if the difference in score between two moves is really real
('statistically significant') , or if it could be due to chance. (If you
toss a coin 20 times and it lands on heads 12 times and tails 8 times,
you can't deduce the coin is biased) - such a small difference can be
due to chance with only 20 tosses. In contrast, if it landed on the head
19 times and the tail only once, you be pretty sure it is biased.
It is assumed that the difference in score between two moves is not due
to chance if the probability of the observed (or any larger) difference
being due to chance, with no underlying reason, is less than 0.05.
See:
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/tutorial/t_search_tree.php
Some interesting observations can be seen looking at my database of 3.5
million games
1) 1.d4 scores better than 1.e4 with a p-value of less than 0.01. In
other words, the chance of the observed or any large score difference
being due to chance is less than 1%.
2) In my database, the opening move with the highest score is 1.Na3.
Despite the score being a lot higher than 1.e4 or 1.d4, this is *not*
statistically significant. In other words, whilst we can't say it 1.Na3
is any better or worst than 1.e4 or 1.d4, we can say that that there is
a high probability that the observed difference is due to chance. As
such, we should pay very little attention to the relative scores.
3) In my database, 3.Nd2 (Tarrash variation) in the French (1.e4 e6 2.d4
d5) scores higher than 3.Nc3 (main line) and is statistically
significant at the 5% level, but not at the 1% level. In other words, we
can be 95% sure there is a real difference in score between 3.Nf3 and
3.Nd2 in my database, but we can't be 99% sure.
In contrast, the difference in scores of 3.Nf3 (or 3.Nd2) to the
exchange (3.exd5) or advance (3.e5) variations is statistically
significant at the p=0.01 level, so there is less than a 1% chance the
observed difference in score is due to chance and can be more than 99%
sure there is an underlying reason. (The reason can't be determined in
ChessDB, but one might strongly suspect the advance or exchange are
inferior for white than the main line (3.Nc3) or Tarrasch (3.Nd2).
(I personally have a much better success rate with the Tarrasch than the
advance too. I will not contemplate the exchange as it is too boring and
while it is drawish, it scores pretty low for white.)
Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of statistics might guess I am using
a chi-squared test, which is what I am doing. Chi-squared is calculated
then the p-value determined from that, using an algorithm good to 4
decimal places. I intend changing that to a more accurate approximation
soon.
Other changes in ChessDB include
* Native support for UCI engines (using some code from P. Georges, which
I fully acknowledge, unlike him when he uses my code).
* The facility to download a database of either 100,000 or 3.5 million
games. The database is split into multiple parts for easy downloading,
then reconstructed by ChessDB and an MD5 checksum used to verify the
database has not been corrupted in transmission.
* Quickly download games from the history of anyone on ICC or FICS.
* Numerous other changes documented at:
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/Scid/
I'm interested in what others think of the idea of testing the
statistical significance in the difference of two moves. To the best of
my knowledge, no other chess database does this, yet it seems to me
quite logical.
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 09:13:52
From: Richard
Subject: Re: Opening traps - was Statistical significance of score differences - new release of ChessDB
|
On Aug 22, 9:16 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Dave (from the UK) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The problem I have seen with many of these bad moves is that one
> > side sets a trap for their opponent to play a bad move. This usually
> > (but not always) means playing a slightty sub-optimal move. If your
> > opponent falls for the traps, you have a good chance of winnning the
> > game quickly. If they don't you will have an inferior position.
>
> Quite. Heisman calls this `hope chess' and repeatedly advises against
> it. Really, this whole approach is just a slightly more grown-up
> version of 1.e4 2.Bc4 3.Qf3/h5.
>
> Dave.
>
Those aren't the type of bad moves I was talking about in my earlier
posts. While there are traps that give you an inferior position if
your opponent notices the trap and doesn't fall for it, there are
plenty of solid moves that happen to have a trap to them if one side
doesn't realize it. While I've seen books on cheap traps and really
lousy opening moves (Pandolfini's Traps and Zaps, etc), I haven't seen
any books that warn against the reasonable seeming opening moves that
just don't work.
For instance, the Vienna Gambit: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4. Many
players who don't know this position think they can treat it like a
King's Gambit with knights developed earlier, and they accept the
gambit pawn with 3. ... exf4. In this position, though, that's a
blunder due to 4. e5, forcing the f6 knight to retreat to its starting
square (4. ... Qe7 5. Qe2 doesn't help). But that's not what white's
hoping for when he plays 3. f4. He just wants more control over the
center and a chance to open the f file so his castled rook will attack
f7. That's not a cheap trap, just a reasonable opening move.
And 3. ... fxe4 seems like a reasonable move at first glance, to
someone who hasn't seen this position before. While this may be
discussed in a book on the Vienna, how many players who respond to 1.
e4 with e5 and don't play the Vienna as white are going to read a book
on the Vienna? This type of thing isn't covered in MCO or NCO or any
similar reference that someone might use just to get a basic feel for
openings they might run into but don't routinely play.
So that's the type of book I'd like to see - something that covers
these types of reasonable looking moves that don't work for a wide
variety of openings.
And you've got Heisman's definition of "hope chess" wrong. He uses
that term to describe playing a move without looking at your
opponent's possible responses, just hoping that they don't have a good
response. It's not about hoping your opponent doesn't see something.
--Fromper
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 20:13:22
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Opening traps - was Statistical significance of score differences - new release of ChessDB
|
Richard <[email protected] > wrote:
> For instance, the Vienna Gambit: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4. Many
> players who don't know this position think they can treat it like a
> King's Gambit with knights developed earlier, and they accept the
> gambit pawn with 3. ... exf4. In this position, though, that's a
> blunder due to 4. e5, forcing the f6 knight to retreat to its
> starting square (4. ... Qe7 5. Qe2 doesn't help). [...]
>
> And 3. ... fxe4 seems like a reasonable move at first glance, to
> someone who hasn't seen this position before.
1) Don't play the first move that comes into your head.
2) The opening principles that development and the centre are
important tell you that 4.e5 is strong here.
> And you've got Heisman's definition of "hope chess" wrong. He uses
> that term to describe playing a move without looking at your
> opponent's possible responses, just hoping that they don't have a
> good response.
Yes, you're right.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Gigantic Mexi-Composer (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pupil of Beethoven that comes from
Mexico but it's huge!
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 19:15:43
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release of
|
17.08.2007 14:52, Dave:
> But I've added code that will determine
> if the difference in score between two moves is really real
> ('statistically significant') , or if it could be due to chance.
Two important factors are completely ignored in this calculation:
development over time and strength of the involved players. The first is
important because once a refuation or at least a very strong answer for
a move is found, its frequency drops. So, the old statistics of this
move stay unchanged over a long time - possibly with a favourable result
for this move, although it might be well known that this move should be
avoided.
The second factor is quite obvious: games of higher rated players tend
to be less erratic, so that those results are more expressive.
Therefore, if I look at numbers, I check the average Elo and the
performance.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 18:41:12
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release of ChessDB
|
Den 2007-08-17 14:52:16 skrev Dave <[email protected] >:
> I've made a new release of ChessDB, a chess database based on Scid from
> Shane Hudson. There is a fork too of ChessDB from the lying
> plagiarist Pascal Georges who passes of work of mine as his own, as I
> have documented at:..........
Befrore I download it I would like to know whether it handles transpositions, i.e., are
*unplayed* moves visible in the tree that lead to a played position?
Mats
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 20:43:29
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release of
|
M Winther wrote:
> Befrore I download it I would like to know whether it handles
> transpositions, i.e., are
> *unplayed* moves visible in the tree that lead to a played position?
>
> Mats
>
Yes. It shown positions, not moves. Hence sometimes you will find there
are no games in the database at move 5, but by move 6 there are thousands.
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 18:38:41
From: Pascal
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release of
|
At least other people around the world clearly got who is that guy !!
Pascal
http://prolinux.free.fr/alex_guestbook/
Dave a �crit :
> I've made a new release of ChessDB, a chess database based on Scid from
> Shane Hudson. There is a fork too of ChessDB from the lying
> plagiarist Pascal Georges who passes of work of mine as his own, as I
> have documented at:
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.chess.computer/browse_frm/thread/658a58d9a17b9aaf/dcb9e3c5e4e7266a?lnk=st&q=scid+released&rnum=1&hl=en#dcb9e3c5e4e7266a
>
>
> Anyway, the main reason for my post it to introduce a new feature in
> ChessDB and I would be interested in comments from others about this.
>
> Basically ChessDB has a tree window, like many databases (Scid,
> ChessBase, Chess Assistant etc). But I've added code that will determine
> if the difference in score between two moves is really real
> ('statistically significant') , or if it could be due to chance. (If you
> toss a coin 20 times and it lands on heads 12 times and tails 8 times,
> you can't deduce the coin is biased) - such a small difference can be
> due to chance with only 20 tosses. In contrast, if it landed on the head
> 19 times and the tail only once, you be pretty sure it is biased.
>
> It is assumed that the difference in score between two moves is not due
> to chance if the probability of the observed (or any larger) difference
> being due to chance, with no underlying reason, is less than 0.05.
>
> See:
>
> http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/tutorial/t_search_tree.php
>
> Some interesting observations can be seen looking at my database of 3.5
> million games
>
> 1) 1.d4 scores better than 1.e4 with a p-value of less than 0.01. In
> other words, the chance of the observed or any large score difference
> being due to chance is less than 1%.
>
> 2) In my database, the opening move with the highest score is 1.Na3.
> Despite the score being a lot higher than 1.e4 or 1.d4, this is *not*
> statistically significant. In other words, whilst we can't say it 1.Na3
> is any better or worst than 1.e4 or 1.d4, we can say that that there is
> a high probability that the observed difference is due to chance. As
> such, we should pay very little attention to the relative scores.
>
> 3) In my database, 3.Nd2 (Tarrash variation) in the French (1.e4 e6 2.d4
> d5) scores higher than 3.Nc3 (main line) and is statistically
> significant at the 5% level, but not at the 1% level. In other words, we
> can be 95% sure there is a real difference in score between 3.Nf3 and
> 3.Nd2 in my database, but we can't be 99% sure.
>
> In contrast, the difference in scores of 3.Nf3 (or 3.Nd2) to the
> exchange (3.exd5) or advance (3.e5) variations is statistically
> significant at the p=0.01 level, so there is less than a 1% chance the
> observed difference in score is due to chance and can be more than 99%
> sure there is an underlying reason. (The reason can't be determined in
> ChessDB, but one might strongly suspect the advance or exchange are
> inferior for white than the main line (3.Nc3) or Tarrasch (3.Nd2).
>
> (I personally have a much better success rate with the Tarrasch than the
> advance too. I will not contemplate the exchange as it is too boring and
> while it is drawish, it scores pretty low for white.)
>
> Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of statistics might guess I am using
> a chi-squared test, which is what I am doing. Chi-squared is calculated
> then the p-value determined from that, using an algorithm good to 4
> decimal places. I intend changing that to a more accurate approximation
> soon.
>
> Other changes in ChessDB include
>
> * Native support for UCI engines (using some code from P. Georges, which
> I fully acknowledge, unlike him when he uses my code).
>
> * The facility to download a database of either 100,000 or 3.5 million
> games. The database is split into multiple parts for easy downloading,
> then reconstructed by ChessDB and an MD5 checksum used to verify the
> database has not been corrupted in transmission.
>
> * Quickly download games from the history of anyone on ICC or FICS.
>
> * Numerous other changes documented at:
> http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/Scid/
>
>
>
> I'm interested in what others think of the idea of testing the
> statistical significance in the difference of two moves. To the best of
> my knowledge, no other chess database does this, yet it seems to me
> quite logical.
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 09:10:48
From: Richard
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release of ChessDB
|
That is a very cool idea for a feature. I haven't used databases much
in general, so I don't know much about existing features, but I could
see how something like that could be very useful to a master trying to
refine their opening preparation. At my patzer level (1400ish USCF),
it's something that could be cool just for the sake of curiousity.
So is this a free program? As I said, I don't know much about chess
databases (which is ironic, since I specialize in SQL databases in my
profession). I'd like to get a database program and a large database
of master and GM games eventually, so I can see how better players
than me handle certain openings and the positions that result from
them. For now, I tend to just go to chesslab.com and look at games
there in the openings I play.
--Fromper
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 20:41:22
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release of
|
Richard wrote:
> That is a very cool idea for a feature.
I'm glad you like it.
> I haven't used databases much
> in general, so I don't know much about existing features, but I could
> see how something like that could be very useful to a master trying to
> refine their opening preparation. At my patzer level (1400ish USCF),
> it's something that could be cool just for the sake of curiousity.
>
> So is this a free program?
Yes, its open source and free.
homepage
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/
tutorial
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
download page:
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/downloads/
> As I said, I don't know much about chess
> databases (which is ironic, since I specialize in SQL databases in my
> profession). I'd like to get a database program and a large database
> of master and GM games eventually, so I can see how better players
> than me handle certain openings and the positions that result from
> them.
If you download it, then go to the Tools menu, Select "Download games
from" then select "3.5 million games site #1" it will download you a 3.5
million game database.
For now, I tend to just go to chesslab.com and look at games
> there in the openings I play.
Well with 3.5 million you have quite a few. ChessDB also has the
facility to download from The Week In Chess (TWIC), so you can update
the database every week (usually a Monday), when new games are added to
TWIC. See:
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/tutorial/twic-retriveal.php
(The program has an http client to connect to the external sources of
data. There is also a telnet client which is used to download games from
FICS and ICC).
I do have a larger database, which I could make available, but as
databases get larger, the quality of the games goes down.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 18:18:31
From: Anonymous
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release of
|
Well, if you like chess databases with a lot of features you can grab
Scid at http://scid.sourceforge.net or http://prolinux.free.fr/scid (the
lattest with some training features, and the ability to play against
various engines).
Richard a �crit :
> That is a very cool idea for a feature. I haven't used databases much
> in general, so I don't know much about existing features, but I could
> see how something like that could be very useful to a master trying to
> refine their opening preparation. At my patzer level (1400ish USCF),
> it's something that could be cool just for the sake of curiousity.
>
> So is this a free program? As I said, I don't know much about chess
> databases (which is ironic, since I specialize in SQL databases in my
> profession). I'd like to get a database program and a large database
> of master and GM games eventually, so I can see how better players
> than me handle certain openings and the positions that result from
> them. For now, I tend to just go to chesslab.com and look at games
> there in the openings I play.
>
> --Fromper
>
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 20:25:26
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release ofChessDB
|
Anonymous wrote:
> Well, if you like chess databases with a lot of features you can grab
> Scid at http://scid.sourceforge.net or http://prolinux.free.fr/scid (the
> lattest with some training features, and the ability to play against
> various engines).
And the latter of which has code taken from ChessDB but not acknowledged.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 23:01:47
From: Pascal
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release ofChessDB
|
Dave a �crit :
> Anonymous wrote:
>> Well, if you like chess databases with a lot of features you can grab
>> Scid at http://scid.sourceforge.net or http://prolinux.free.fr/scid
>> (the lattest with some training features, and the ability to play
>> against various engines).
>
> And the latter of which has code taken from ChessDB but not acknowledged.
Pure lies, but if you want you can put all Pocket PC code I wrote and
available on my site, change the name from PocketScid to DK_sucker, and
put your (C) on files where you did not change one byte.
You are used to it. This is what you did first with Scid, and this is
why I stayed few days tuned with you.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 09:01:41
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release ofChessDB
|
Pascal wrote:
>> And the latter of which has code taken from ChessDB but not acknowledged.
>
> Pure lies, but if you want you can put all Pocket PC code I wrote and
Rather than say "Pure lies" why not address the SPECIFIC I have raised
before?
I posted 9 SPECIFIC EXAMPLES before at:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.chess.computer/browse_thread/thread/658a58d9a17b9aaf/371410985ca374d4?lnk=st&q=scid+chess+pascal&rnum=1&hl=en#371410985ca374d4
But I'll ask you a few questions about the following 3 lines in your
very latest (3.6.18) plagiarised version of 'Scid' from the file
src/textbuf.h.
------------------------------------------
// void ClearTranslation (char ch) { Translation[ch] = NULL; }
// Changed ch to int, to avoid compiler warnings.
void ClearTranslation (int ch) { Translation[ch] = NULL; }
-----------------------------------------
I am being VERY SPECIFIC here - just restricting the example to 3 little
lines, with some VERY SPECIFIC questions.
1) Did you write those 3 lines Pascal?
2) If so, when?
3) If you did not write them, please indicate where they came from.
See I know those lines well. Shane wrote the first, but it was not
commented out (// is a comment in C++). The second, a comment about the
change to remove compiler warnings is what I personally wrote (yes me).
The 3rd is my changed line.
Now Sourceforge have this very nice facility on their CVS repository
that allows one to see differences between different versions of a file.
This link
http://chessdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/chessdb/chessdb/src/textbuf.h?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
shows in yellow the differences between version 1.1 of src/textbuf.h in
ChessDB (Tue Dec 26 19:37:44 2006 UTC) in and version 1.2 in ChessDB,
less than an hour later at Tue Dec 26 20:11:49 2006 UTC.
Funny how the lines in your code are EXACTLY the same as what I put on
Sourceforge. Your first release of scid-pg (later you renamed to Scid),
was not until AFTER that date.
So there is the challenge. Explain why the 3 lines are there? If you
find that too easy (which I doubt you will if you do it PROPERLY), then
try the others in the link on my post in Feb of this year.
SO TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO ANYONE. THE SOFTWARE PASCAL CALLS SCID IS A
FORK FROM ChessDB. It does *NOT* start from tbe Scid sources, but uses
code I wrote and code others wrote.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 12:47:32
From: Pascal
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release ofChessDB
|
Could you please stop inventing false clues on senseless pityful stuff ?
You took patches on internet, as I did, you applied them to Scid 3.6.1
sources as I did : hence the common stuff on very few lines : ok,
congratulations ! And so what ? Don't you think it is better to reward
original authors of patches instead of you ?
Yes I tried to collaborate a few days with you, but I understood quickly
how insane you are : do you own copyright on mispellings, C++ comments
? Can't anybody write "//" without (c) D Kirkbye alongside ? Can't I
comment one line of code in Scid without checking if you did the same ?
I continue Scid development, you first started renaming all Scid's
occurences in source files (more than 1600) without any added value, and
putting (c) D Kirkby on files you did not change at all : that's the
truth, and you even did not deny your misbehaviour ! All you can do is
take others' work and act as if you were a genius.
What's the meaning of your endless childish arguing, that interests
*nobody* ?
Dave a �crit :
> Pascal wrote:
>
>>> And the latter of which has code taken from ChessDB but not
>>> acknowledged.
>>
>> Pure lies, but if you want you can put all Pocket PC code I wrote and
>
> Rather than say "Pure lies" why not address the SPECIFIC I have raised
> before?
>
> I posted 9 SPECIFIC EXAMPLES before at:
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.chess.computer/browse_thread/thread/658a58d9a17b9aaf/371410985ca374d4?lnk=st&q=scid+chess+pascal&rnum=1&hl=en#371410985ca374d4
>
>
> But I'll ask you a few questions about the following 3 lines in your
> very latest (3.6.18) plagiarised version of 'Scid' from the file
> src/textbuf.h.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> // void ClearTranslation (char ch) { Translation[ch] = NULL; }
> // Changed ch to int, to avoid compiler warnings.
> void ClearTranslation (int ch) { Translation[ch] = NULL; }
> -----------------------------------------
>
> I am being VERY SPECIFIC here - just restricting the example to 3 little
> lines, with some VERY SPECIFIC questions.
>
> 1) Did you write those 3 lines Pascal?
> 2) If so, when?
> 3) If you did not write them, please indicate where they came from.
>
> See I know those lines well. Shane wrote the first, but it was not
> commented out (// is a comment in C++). The second, a comment about the
> change to remove compiler warnings is what I personally wrote (yes me).
> The 3rd is my changed line.
>
> Now Sourceforge have this very nice facility on their CVS repository
> that allows one to see differences between different versions of a file.
>
> This link
>
> http://chessdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/chessdb/chessdb/src/textbuf.h?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
>
>
> shows in yellow the differences between version 1.1 of src/textbuf.h in
> ChessDB (Tue Dec 26 19:37:44 2006 UTC) in and version 1.2 in ChessDB,
> less than an hour later at Tue Dec 26 20:11:49 2006 UTC.
>
> Funny how the lines in your code are EXACTLY the same as what I put on
> Sourceforge. Your first release of scid-pg (later you renamed to Scid),
> was not until AFTER that date.
>
> So there is the challenge. Explain why the 3 lines are there? If you
> find that too easy (which I doubt you will if you do it PROPERLY), then
> try the others in the link on my post in Feb of this year.
>
>
>
> SO TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO ANYONE. THE SOFTWARE PASCAL CALLS SCID IS A
> FORK FROM ChessDB. It does *NOT* start from tbe Scid sources, but uses
> code I wrote and code others wrote.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 12:08:50
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release ofChessDB
|
Pascal wrote:
> Could you please stop inventing false clues on senseless pityful stuff ?
There is no false or pitiful stuff.
> You took patches on internet,
Not the 3 lines I posted just posted (or a lot more, but I'll keep it
simple and restrict discussion it to just 3 lines).
That was *not* from the internet. I would ask you to show me *anywhere*
that patch can be found, or anyone that claims to have wrote it.
I wrote it - not you, not anyone else.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:13:26
From: Pascal
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release ofChessDB
|
If this was true, I would like to apologize and thank you so much Dave
for your contribution to Scid and for these 3 lines, and for all you did
to make Scid alive while its author's unavailability (due to long illness).
I thought you only wanted to kill Scid and bury it and take advantage of
other's work to cover your lack of skills, and I was certainly wrong.
Chess computer's world really need people like you.
Dave a �crit :
> I wrote it - not you, not anyone else.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 17:09:00
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release ofChessDB
|
Pascal wrote:
> If this was true, I would like to apologize and thank you so much Dave
> for your contribution to Scid and for these 3 lines, and for all you did
> to make Scid alive while its author's unavailability (due to long illness).
But it is not just 3 lines - and you know full well that it is not just
3 lines. I posted a longer list before:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.chess.computer/browse_thread/thread/658a58d9a17b9aaf/dcb9e3c5e4e7266a?lnk=st&q=scid+chessdb+This+is+a+little+more+complex+than+it+appears.+READ+ON+....+&rnum=1&hl=en#dcb9e3c5e4e7266a
which you never bothered responding to properly. Perhaps I will have
more luck with small pieces at a time, so here is a bit more - this time
12 lines, not 3.
http://chessdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/chessdb/chessdb/src/position.cpp?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
Want more?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 20:51:57
From: Pascal
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release ofChessDB
|
Dave a �crit :
> Pascal wrote:
>> If this was true, I would like to apologize and thank you so much Dave
>> for your contribution to Scid and for these 3 lines, and for all you
>> did to make Scid alive while its author's unavailability (due to long
>> illness).
>
> But it is not just 3 lines - and you know full well that it is not just
> 3 lines. I posted a longer list before:
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.chess.computer/browse_thread/thread/658a58d9a17b9aaf/dcb9e3c5e4e7266a?lnk=st&q=scid+chessdb+This+is+a+little+more+complex+than+it+appears.+READ+ON+....+&rnum=1&hl=en#dcb9e3c5e4e7266a
>
>
> which you never bothered responding to properly. Perhaps I will have
> more luck with small pieces at a time, so here is a bit more - this time
> 12 lines, not 3.
>
> http://chessdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/chessdb/chessdb/src/position.cpp?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
>
>
> Want more?
>
Yes ! We all want more !
What you say and your consideration for the past work of others is so
interesting !
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 21:20:30
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release ofChessDB
|
Pascal wrote:
>> which you never bothered responding to properly. Perhaps I will have
>> more luck with small pieces at a time, so here is a bit more - this
>> time 12 lines, not 3.
>>
>> http://chessdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/chessdb/chessdb/src/position.cpp?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
>>
>>
>> Want more?
>>
>
> Yes ! We all want more !
> What you say and your consideration for the past work of others is so
> interesting !
What do you mean by 'others'? It is not others that wrote it, but me!!
I'll make it clearer, with the following statement::
The 12 changes between the Shane's source file src/position.cpp in the
real Scid (not your plagiarised version) and what appears in 'your'
first release of scid-pg and still exist in 'your' latest release of
scid (3.6.18) were *not* written by you. They were not written by any
others. They were written by me.
THAT IS FACT AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED.
Do you claim to have made those changes in the file src/position.cpp?
If you do not claim to have made the changes yourself, would you mind
saying where you got them from?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 00:23:28
From: Pascal
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release ofChessDB
|
Dave a �crit :
> > Yes ! We all want more !
> > What you say and your consideration for the past work of others is so interesting !
> What do you mean by 'others'? It is not others that wrote it, but me!!
others = Shane Hudson, people contributing to Scid, etc.
> If you do not claim to have made the changes yourself, would you mind
> saying where you got them from?
Okay, Dave you got me. I am strictly unable to prove what I wrote : so I
make public apologizes to you :
- Scid 3.6.18 was written by you (except some code by Shane Hudson). I
never took Scid 3.6.1 sources and continued its development : all or
part of 3.6.18 (choose what pleases you the most) was made by you.
Thank you very much for continuing Scid, Dave. Thank you for having
tried to continue the great work on behalf of someone who is
unfortunately unable to do so ;
- the upcoming version of Pocket Scid is currently written by you : I
wait for its release with a great impatience.
Thank you very much for that, Dave.
Please, do you allow me to continue to host your work at my site ?
Pascal
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 13:55:10
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release of
|
Dave wrote:
> I've made a new release of ChessDB, a chess database based on Scid from
> Shane Hudson.
I forgot to say, if you want to try ChessDB or use it to download a
large database, see:
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/downloads/
|
|
