It's time for a new revolution, we are in 2014

By Ralf Mueller Date 2014-10-06 18:07 Edited 2014-10-06 18:14

Dear Mr. Canbaz,

I highly respect your work. Let me add one thing:

Zitat:

So we are engine testers,
We need to know: which chess engines are 100% original work ??
And which original chess engine should be as participants ?
Is there a such chess engine, which is based 100% on own original ideas ??

According to my chess engine experience:
- There is no such thing...correct me please if I am wrong...

I would claim that my private engine is nearly 100% original work, since I didn't know Talkchess, CPW, other sources and ideas when I (and a friend) developed the engine and so far I didn't rewrite this old code (only changed the eval, but also with own ideas). Thereby, the engine is relatively weak (there's no nullmove, no extensions, only an own 'alpha-beta-pruning') und doesn't support any chess interface protocol.

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-07 23:39

Ralf Mueller schrieb:

Dear Mr. Canbaz,

I highly respect your work. Let me add one thing:

Zitat:

Dear Mr. Ralf Mueller,

Thanks...

Looking forward to test your engine in SCCT!

Greetings,
Sedat

By Reinhard Scharnagl Date 2014-10-06 22:13

Deutsches Forum - Antwort auf deutsch:

Wenn man zu wenig eigenständig entwickelte Engines sieht,
liegt es vielleicht daran, dass man die vorhandenen übersieht.
Ein Eigengewächs besitzt halt nicht all die zusammen gepatchten
Hilights sondern nur das, was dem eigenen Kopf entsprungen
ist. Und davon hat man meistens ja leider nur einen.

Also: Augen auf im Engine-Zoo. Es gibt genug zu sehen.

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-07 23:35

Btw, here are the sons of the Shark (Rybka) !!

Hopes helps...

sim version 3
------ Rybka 3 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0) ------
61.79 RobboLito 0.085g3 w32 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
59.18 Elektro 1.0 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
58.76 Fire 3.0 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
58.45 BlackMamba 2.0 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
57.66 Critter 1.6a 64-bit (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
57.65 Equinox 3.20 x64mp (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
57.00 Naum 4.6 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
56.98 Murka 3 x64 UCI (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
56.48 Houdini 4 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
55.12 Critter 0.90 64-bit SSE4 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
54.87 Rybka 1.0 Beta (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
53.93 Fruit 090705 Test Beta (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
53.69 Stockfish 2.1 JA 64bit (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
53.44 Stockfish 2.1 JA 64bit (time: 50 ms scale: 1.0)
53.29 Strelka 2.0 B (time: 50 ms scale: 1.0)
52.82 Komodo64 2.03 DC (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
52.80 Heron impossible 231113 X64 Normal mode (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
52.51 Stockfish 1.5 JA 64bit (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
52.10 Stockfish 1.7 JA 64bit (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
52.05 Senpai 1.0 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
51.69 Stockfish 1.7.1 JA (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
51.21 Protector 1.7.0 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
51.08 Komodo 8 64-bit (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
50.50 Gull 3 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
50.47 Glaurung 2.2 JA (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
50.46 Stockfish 140614 64 SSE4.2 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
50.34 Deep Shredder 12 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
50.04 spark-1.0 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
49.58 Toga II 3.0 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
49.09 MinkoChess 1.3 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
49.00 Crafty 23.8 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
48.85 Chiron 2 64bit (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
48.54 Fruit 2.1 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
48.54 Bobcat 3.25 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
47.54 Daydreamer 1.75 JA (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
47.29 Octochess revision 5190 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
47.23 Bison 9.11 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
46.78 TwinFish 0.07 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
46.71 cheng4 0.36a (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
46.55 Rodent 1.4 (build 2) (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
46.33 Cyrano 0.6b17 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
45.78 Tornado 5.0 x64 SSE4 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
45.63 Chess Tiger 2007.1 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
45.59 Spike 1.4 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
44.32 Vajolet 2.48 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
44.26 Movei00_8_438 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
43.28 EXchess v7.31b x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
42.33 Igorrit 0.086v8_x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
40.65 Ktulu 8 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
40.25 Booot 5.2.0(64) (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
40.06 Zappa Mexico II (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
35.71 Deep Sjeng WC2008 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
27.40 Arasan 17.2 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)

By Ingo B. Date 2014-10-08 03:33

Sedat Canbaz schrieb:

sim version 3
------ Rybka 3 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0) ------
...
56.48 Houdini 4 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
...

There are about 240 Elo between R3 and H4 and still you consider it as a clone?

That is a reason why I do not like (and never liked) the sim-tool. As you just proofed it can be used for a "witch hunt". There has to be a certain Elo increase where you have to accept that the own work is substiancial and not just a simple cloning - latest at that point the sim tool becomes irrelevant.

Ingo

By Peter Martan Date 2014-10-08 07:42 Edited 2014-10-08 08:18

Ingo B. schrieb:

There has to be a certain Elo increase where you have to accept that the own work is substiancial and not just a simple cloning - latest at that point the sim tool becomes irrelevant.

As I understood Sedat, that's just his point I guess, Ingo.
He wants to see the sim tool in line with Elo increase, is that right Sedat?
Seems a good idea to me.
Remains the question, if you take Elo as the measurement to differentiate between engines near to each other (as for the sim tool or simply as the one and only measurement , if you don't like the sim tool or any other simliar tool

instead) how do you know at first sight, whether to test it as for Elo at all or not at all?

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-08 22:44 Edited 2014-10-08 22:47

Peter Martan schrieb:

[
As I understood Sedat, that's just his point I guess, Ingo.
He wants to see the sim tool in line with Elo increase, is that right Sedat?
Seems a good idea to me.
Remains the question, if you take Elo as the measurement to differentiate between engines near to each other (as for the sim tool or simply as the one and only measurement , if you don't like the sim tool or any other simliar tool

instead) how do you know at first sight, whether to test it as for Elo at all or not at all?

Hello Peter,

Let me please to tell you one interesting story (I already told the same story to Frank, maybe you missed it...)

A long time ago,
I had racing pigeons (as second hobby) between 1980-2003

And during 2003 years, my racing pigeons are married to each other
I mean to sons, to brothers, to daughters etc..) because I was too busy with my business...and I could not control

There was only one solution,
I picked all mixed-blood relative racing pigeons and went to approx. 400 km of distance from Antalya
The number of this relative (mixed-blood) racing pigeons was around 50...
And in the end... only 2 pigeons are managed to come back to home (pigeon loft)!
I mean only the smartest ones managed to come at home...!!

*Note: those 50 racing pigeons are released directly from 400 km (i mean they never has been trained or before released...)

In other words,
The current new SCCT rule is similar as which I used 12 years ago

Best,
Sedat

Btw, here are some of my racing pigeons :

By Peter Martan Date 2014-10-08 23:42 Edited 2014-10-08 23:48

Nice picture, Sedat!

But I wonder what might have become of the pigeons, that didn't find home?
Let's hope, they are doing well too.

Furthermore all the best for your books and your testing!

Best Test Regards
Peter.

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-09 11:35 Edited 2014-10-09 11:40

Peter Martan schrieb:

Nice picture, Sedat!

But I wonder what might have become of the pigeons, that didn't find home?
Let's hope, they are doing well too.

Furthermore all the best for your books and your testing!

Best Test Regards
Peter.

Hello Peter,

There are several reasons about why rest pigeons did not find their home:
1)Mixed-blooded relative racing pigeons are usually not very clever
2)They are released without training, I mean they are released first time and directly from long distance
3)Some of the racing pigeons are maybe caught by birds of prey - hawks, falcons etc...
4)Of course another reason can be, maybe some of the pigeons are shot by hunters
5)It was a summer time, (Antalya is too hot in summer), the weather temperature was approx. 35C
Note:I preferred especially very hard conditions, because I don't like bloody pigeons (like bloody engine too:)!

But this is also true, if I release racing pigeons under the below conditions (again from 400 km),but:
1)If all 50 racing pigeons were pure blooded
2)If they were trained before ,e.g firstly from 25 km, 50 km, 100 km
3)If the weather temperature was approx. 15-20C (usually these temperatures are wintertime in Antalya)

Then I expect mostly the racing pigeons would find their home,
Then maybe the number of the lost pigeons would be 10-15 pigeons

Note also I had a such racing pigeon, which managed to find its home from 520 km in 11 hours !!!
Still I can't forget this great pigeon...

Btw, that's why I like a lot Rybka + Houdini, really both engines are different than all, GENERALS in my eyes !!
The rest ones (Critter, Naum, Fire etc...), sorry to say that, but they are just SOLDIERS... no more no less !!

Best,
Sedat

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-09 13:05 Edited 2014-10-09 13:38

One thing more dear Peter,
Some people are claiming that Rybka and Houdini are clones, but they are missing one important thing,
Both white pigeons (Rybka and Houdini) are managed to find their home directly from 400 km, where others not...

Btw, another very interesting note:
-Rybks is 400 Elo stronger than Fruit and I released my pigeons from 400 km too !)

In other words,
Rest bloody pigeons (Critter, Naum etc..) can find their own home only by the help by Rybka and Houdini !!
But not from long distances...maybe up to 30-50 km (30-50 elo) )))

And according to my pigeon experience,
It's not necessary to be a racing pigeon to find its own home up to 30-50 km
I mean even wild pigeon can find its home from such short distances ))

In shortly,
I prefer to feed those chess engines which are pure blooded and the most clever ones!)

Greetings,
Sedat

By Peter Martan Date 2014-10-09 16:09

Sedat Canbaz schrieb:

-Rybks is 400 Elo stronger than Fruit and I released my pigeons from 400 km too !)

I read in CCC once, that pigeons brains were several times faster in realizing pictures being seen than humans ones were, which should help in playing chess too, so the answer was, the writer would like to play against pigeons maybe.

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-10 11:30 Edited 2014-10-10 11:34

Peter Martan schrieb:

Sedat Canbaz schrieb:

-Rybks is 400 Elo stronger than Fruit and I released my pigeons from 400 km too !)

Yes...racing pigeons are better in realizing the objects being seen than humans and exception this ability,
Some racing pigeons can fly in the night...e.g humans without light can not see ))!!
Another unique ability that pigeons are much better than humans is that,
Still is not proven how do racing pigeons navigate in finding their own home !?

There are several theories, but still not clear...

For example, here are some of the main unproven theories, where racing pigeons use:
- The earth’s magnetic field
- Visual clues such as familiar landmarks, rivers, motorways and hills to locate home
- The position of the sun or stars as an aid
- Infra sounds
- Smell
etc...

Personally I think,
Racing pigeons use the magnetic field of the earth to navigate, but I am not sure exactly ))

But whatever is the truth,
This unique 'unproven navigation' ability makes the pigeon a very special bird!!

Best,
Sedat

By Peter Martan Date 2014-10-08 07:54 Edited 2014-10-08 08:03

Übrigens, nur so ganz am Rande, darf ich noch unter uns auf Deutsch (sozusagen hinter vorgehaltener Hand) darauf hinweisen, dass das sim tool nichts anderes als ein sim(pler) Stellungstest ist, wenn auch etwas anders, als du ihn noch kennst (aus der Zeit, als du dich das letzte Mal mit so etwas beschäftigt hast).
Vielleicht widerstrebt dir das arme unschuldige tool ja eh nur deshalb so...

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-08 21:46 Edited 2014-10-08 21:54

Ingo B. schrieb:

Sedat Canbaz schrieb:

sim version 3
------ Rybka 3 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0) ------
...
56.48 Houdini 4 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
...

Hello dear Igno,

First of all,

I have never said Houdini is clone of Rybka,
I suggest you to look more closely again, I said sons

To be honest,
Houdini is different than all, the most cleverest son of Rybka )) and it's original in my eyes!
I think H4 is based mainly on own ideas, otherwise H4 would not be strong than R3

But this is also true,
Without Rybka: Houdini would not be so strong as it nowadays!!

Sim tool very rarely makes mistakes, be sure of this !!!

Only Twinfish (a new Stockfish clone, optimized especially against sim tool) is managed to be approx. 53% (comparing to original Stockfish)
A little note more: the creator of Twinfish could not managed to not drop its elo performance
I mean Twinfish is much weaker than real original Stockfish...this is really very important!!!

Hopes helps...

Btw, good luck with your rest sons of Rybka (Critter, Naum etc...)

Best,
Sedat

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-10 13:05

Btw, I am tired testing 'camouflaged' chess engines

That's why it's time to fight against cloning !!!

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-10 13:06 Edited 2014-10-10 13:57

One thing more,
Let's take as an example, Critter or Naum or any other non-original engines...

About Critter,
What kind of Elo improvement it has ?
As far as I know it is derivative/clone of Houdini 1.5a and Rybka 3 !

About Naum ,
What kind of Elo improvement it has ?
As far as I know it is derivative/clone of Rybka !

I can give you much more similar examples...just let me know please

In other words,
I can not see any reason to test such chess engines, which are based on other ideas and works !!
We need racing pigeons (chess engines), which are able to find its own home from long distances, e.g 400 km (400 Elo)
The MIXED-BLOODY RELATIVE ones, which are able to find its home up to 30-50 km (30-50 Elo)...SORRY, I will not feed them !!

Note: Both mentioned engines (Critter and Naum) has 0 Elo improvements
For example, I can change my view, if Critter 1.6a is stronger than Houdini 1.5a

So...in case of Critter 1.6a to be SCCT participant:
- Mr. Richard Vida should add +100 Elo stronger than Houdini 1.5a

Hopes this helps too...

Best,
Sedat

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-10 14:13 Edited 2014-10-10 14:21

CEGT (40/4)
Houdini 1.5 x64 4CPU 3133 Elo
Critter 1.6 x64 4CPU 3120 Elo

Very close Elo performance very close sim tool similarity ))!!

By Benno Hartwig Date 2014-10-08 10:58

I prefer
- not to follow a specific tool
- not to restrict now what I'm allowed to be interested for later,
especially not because of the outputs of a not really known and understood tool!

And I prefer to read reports of other interested Persons furthermore who follow their own mind when doing their hobby.
Gaudy colours of computerchess themes, ways of testing, opinions aboput engines.
Please, don't let us make it tool-grey!

Benno

By Peter Martan Date 2014-10-08 11:22 Edited 2014-10-08 11:28

Benno Hartwig schrieb:

- not to follow a specific tool

But to follow an unspecific one or many such unspecific tools?

Benno Hartwig schrieb:

especially not because of the outputs of a not really known and understood tool!

But especially because of the engines' Output!
You don't have anything else than that but Elo, Elo Sedat wants to go on judging anyhow, so what more can you wish for?
If we don't understand this special tool, shouldn't we try to understand it better then, instead of forgetting all we know about it right now?
A tool is as well as you use it.
Show me any better, I'll be confident with each and any based on engine's Output, so again, what else have we got besides Elo?

Sedat wants to count both, did you realize?

Just my two cents and common (chesslike) sense regards
Peter.

P.S. Go, Sedat, go for it!

By Benno Hartwig Date 2014-10-08 11:36

> But to follow an unspecific one or many such unspecific tools?

Do you really think that it's necessary(!) to follow any tool??
I surely do not, and I do not want to.
I want to evaluate output an opinions freely, and I want to act in the way I decide.
You may want to do different.

Benno

By Peter Martan Date 2014-10-08 14:10

Anyone can do privately as anyone likes. If you're a tester like Sedat, you have to use tools of testers' common agreement to choose engines to test or not to test.
Ratinglists need to use many tools to be aknowledged as serious and of common interest, you see?

By Benno Hartwig Date 2014-10-08 14:18 Edited 2014-10-08 14:41

> Anyone can do privately as anyone likes.

That's what is important to me.
Others will decide for themselves. Maybe they want to have a coordinated sight. Surely this has advantages.
Or they are private enough to do their own way, which also ist OK.
Today I think it's also fine, that we have testers who have different views about that, what they want to look at.

Benno

By Peter Martan Date 2014-10-08 14:21

Benno Hartwig schrieb:

Today I think it's also fine, that we have testers who have different views about that, what they want to look at.

About that I agree fully with you.

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-08 22:06

Benno Hartwig schrieb:

Dear Benno,

It seems you missed to read my posting:

Note also, my suggestion is not a DESTINY !)
It's just matter of choice...

Don't forget this too please,
ComputerChess is our hobby...so we should not take too seriously all the things)!

And last,
I hope my current posting will be useful (especially for the new generation)!!

Best,
Sedat

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-08 22:09

Peter Martan schrieb:

P.S. Go, Sedat, go for it!

Thank you very much dear Peter,

You are one of the people who are able to see (under water) up to 500 meters

For example,
I noticed too, some chess friends are able to see even up to 5 meters!!))

Best,
Sedat

By Sedat Canbaz Date 2014-10-11 00:20

Hello there!

New engines have been tested...later maybe I can test some top engines more,
But however I think it's enough for nowadays...I've got the necessary data...what about you ?)

Btw, (without my current used rule: 55% +100 Elo)
Forget SCCT Top 20, even Top 50 engines will be based mainly on Rybkanians !!))

A little note:
-All those close engines to Rybka are released after Rybka 3 release!
Just saying...

And once more time I noticed that,
55% + 100 Elo almost perfectly suits for my needs...

Note also,
Only Houdini managed to be stronger than all, more than 200 Elo over Rybka !!
And I hope to to see more Roberts Houdarts !!!

sim version 3
------ Rybka 3 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0) ------
61.79 RobboLito 0.085g3 w32 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
61.09 Tankist 3.1 32-bit (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
60.61 LEOpard 0.7c (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
60.27 Firenzina 2.3.1 xTreme x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
60.00 IvanHoe-Beta 999946h6 x64 Tr (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
59.64 IPPOLIT 0.080b3 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
59.18 Elektro 1.0 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
59.08 PanChess 00.250 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
58.98 Bouquet 1.8 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
58.95 DeepSaros Human (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
58.76 Fire 3.0 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
58.45 BlackMamba 2.0 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
57.66 Critter 1.6a 64-bit (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
57.65 Equinox 3.20 x64mp (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
57.00 Naum 4.6 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
56.98 Murka 3 x64 UCI (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
56.79 Strelka 6 w32 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
56.48 Houdini 4 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
55.49 Gull II x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
55.39 Belka 1.8.20 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
55.12 Critter 0.90 64-bit SSE4 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
54.87 Rybka 1.0 Beta (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)

sim version 3
------ Fruit 2.1 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0) ------
60.77 Deep Onno 1-2-70 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
57.02 Strelka 2.0 B (time: 50 ms scale: 1.0)
55.80 Belka 1.8.20 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
55.67 Toga II 3.0 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)

sim version 3
------ Delfi 5.4 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0) ------
46.67 Arasan 17.2 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
46.33 Arasan 17.4 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
37.80 Igorrit 0.086v8_x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
37.75 Igorrit 0.086v8_w32 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
37.33 Deep Sjeng WC2008 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
36.40 Booot 5.2.0(64) (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
33.92 Fruit 2.1 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)

Note: So far, Delfi 5.4 seems to be clean on my machines!

Best,
Sedat

By Horst Sikorsky Date 2014-10-10 11:58

Google Übersetzer
Rybks 400 Elo stärker als Obst und ich ließ meine Tauben von 400 km auch!)
Ich habe einmal gelesen, in CCC, dass Tauben Gehirne waren mehrmals bei der Realisierung schneller Bilder gesehen als Menschen waren diejenigen, die in Schach spielen auch helfen sollte, so war die Antwort, der Schriftsteller würde gerne gegen Tauben vielleicht spielen.
Ja ... Brieftauben sind besser bei der Realisierung der Objekte gesehen als Menschen und Ausnahme diese Fähigkeit,
Einige Brieftauben in der Nacht fliegen ... zB Menschen ohne Licht nicht sehen können)) !!
Eine weitere einzigartige Fähigkeit, die Tauben sind viel besser als Menschen ist, dass,
Noch ist nicht bewiesen, wie Sie Brieftauben navigieren bei der Suche nach der eigenen Wohnung?

Es gibt mehrere Theorien, aber immer noch nicht klar ...

Zum Beispiel, hier sind einige der wichtigsten unbewiesene Theorien, in denen Brieftauben verwenden:
- Das Magnetfeld der Erde
- Visuelle Hinweise wie vertraut Sehenswürdigkeiten, Flüsse, Autobahnen und Hügel, nach Hause zu finden
- Die Position der Sonne oder den Sternen als Hilfe
- Infra Klänge
- Geruch
etc ...
Persönlich denke ich,
Brieftauben nutzen das Magnetfeld der Erde zu navigieren, aber ich bin nicht sicher,))
Aber was auch immer die Wahrheit ist,
Diese einzigartige "unbewiesene Navigationsfähigkeit macht die Taube ein ganz besonderer Vogel !!
Horst

By Benno Hartwig Date 2014-10-10 12:47

> hier sind einige der wichtigsten unbewiesene Theorien, in denen Brieftauben verwenden:...

Und außerdem haben sie natürlich Bücher
sie orientieren sie sich an markanten alpha-beta-Bäumen
pflegen Hashtables, erhalten von ihren Züchtern Tablebases
und luschern klammheimlich, was die Kiebitze so sagen (auch wenn sie dann mal total falsch rauskommen).

Benno