Author: Eddie
Date: 11:10:50 09/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2000 at 14:04:06, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 05, 2000 at 13:57:55, Eddie wrote: > >>On September 05, 2000 at 13:53:43, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On September 05, 2000 at 13:46:53, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>> >>>>On September 05, 2000 at 13:31:56, Eddie wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 05, 2000 at 12:04:50, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>One day someone may write a book about the sociology of computer chess. Well, >>>>>>maybe the topic is not interesting enough for a book, but at least an article >>>>>>could be fascinating. A few paragraphs should relate to beta-testing and the >>>>>>relationship between CC freaks and programmers. Fernando: are you interested? >>>>>> >>>>>>Months ago, Uri posted that he expected to be paid for his collaboration with >>>>>>the development of chess programs. It made me smile, because beta-testing is >>>>>>supposed to be a privilege for the tester, although I never quite understood why >>>>>>it works this way. But it does. From one day to the next, a freak may be >>>>>>promoted to the "in" circle, improve his status to the imaginary rank of expert >>>>>>and get the ensuing ego-booster, but he has to pay a price. I have seen private >>>>>>emails from beta-testers published without permission when it was commercially >>>>>>convenient; beta-testers demoted as no-team members; beta-testers forced to >>>>>>write commercially useful stuff for the honor of spending X (when X tends to >>>>>>very many) hours hunting for bugs and checking the engine. Etc. It would seem a >>>>>>matter of common sense to assume, as Uri did, that collaborating in the >>>>>>improvement of a commercial product is a paid job, but in computer chess it is >>>>>>the other way round, even if the tester doesn't pay with money but in species. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have received over the years quite a few betas, but I always made clear that I >>>>>>would play with them for my own fun and in the way I was interested in, at my >>>>>>own whimsical pace, and that I was thoroughly incompetent as a tester (I am). A >>>>>>few times I declined, shame on me, the honor of beta-testing. Certainly the idea >>>>>>of getting paid for what in my case was a no-job didn't cross my mind, but the >>>>>>hierarchical relationship programmer-tester didn't either. Still, this kind of >>>>>>relationship seems to be quite common. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why would that be this way, why a person feels promoted and agrees to pay for >>>>>>the promotion. Strange, isn't it? >>>>>> >>>>>>Enrique >>>>> >>>>>I think it would be an "honor" to be a tester for these great programs! :)) >>>> >>>>You blew it. Instead of using quotation marks you should have wrote Honor. Nah, >>>>you'll never make it to the top... :) >>> >>>I think that Eddie used the quotation marks to express the opinion that it is >>>not an honor. >>> >>>Uri >> >>No Uri, it was written with quotation marks, to signify that it would be an >>"honor" ...... :)) > >By the same idea you can say that it is an honor to write a chess program so the >programmers do not need to sell their program for money. > >I cannot disagree more. > >Uri Uri, Where you coming from? I said it would be an "honor" to be a tester, do you read this text ok? Or are you looking for an argument? I don't need to hear crap of getting paid to be a tester. It's an "honor!" Do I make myself clear here? I sure hope so ......
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.