Author: Detlef Pordzik
Date: 15:17:07 03/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 1998 at 17:02:53, Howard Exner wrote: >On March 23, 1998 at 13:44:59, Scott Carmichael wrote: > >> In an earlier post here, someone stated that they believed that >>computer chess will go on long after the SSDF has fallen into the dust. >>While this statement may be true (it is for me as well, so don't get >>upset), I truly believe that if and when the SSDF falls, there will be a >>replacement either already in existence, or following shortly after the >>demise of the aforementioned group. >> Why you might ask ? Because we that are truly interested in the >>development and progress that has/is being made by the people who create >>and develop such software are truly interested in having a non-biased >>evaluation of these programs readily available to us. Perhaps these >>programmers can join together and agree on such a consortium? >> While my idea may be a bit naive considering the fact that the SSDF >>rates COMMERCIAL software (and, ergo, there is a financial involvement >>on the behalf of the software teams), I believe that the majority of we >>buyers should be able to have some say in these matters. >>Perhaps we can work together to solve this problem in a manner >>satisfactory to all involved !? >> Any suggestions ?? > >I still think that if the SSDF could generate more lists from their >large data pool that interest would be enhanced. >A p200 mmx list only? >A round robin of the newest programs (40 games each) on a p200( ie: >insure that all the new programs play every other program on equal >hardware)? >Which is the strongest P90 vs P90 program? >Which P90 tested program does the best when playing P200 programs? >Which p200 program plays best against p90 competion? >Have all games available for download. (it would be extremely >usefull to play over the games of the p200 match between Fritz 5 >and Rebel 9) >Provide stats on double games if those games will remain included. > >Time and resources are necessary for this and may not be available. And manpower....! As I constantly would like to remind of : the testers are hobbyists.... of course, it would be great, if the list could be split into several bases, like Howard gives example - amateurs, 200 MMX, P 90 - maybe more. But WHO's got the time + ressources to set all this up ? And concerning Scott - sorry, I can't agree herein. Please note, that, of course there are many, many people interested in increase of their progs + more - but : HOW many would be needed - to sit down autoplaying night by night, there has to be kinda header group founded, who coordinates all this.....and the more people are involved the less you come to a conclusion. I fear, think, hope - whatsoever : there's no real equivalent to SSDF , if, at all, the nice small list of Eric, and the other one from the US. Both wouldn't be able to replace SSDF by various reasons. So, the only solution I'd personally think, could help on the existing problems, is, speakin' to the founders or makers of the SSDF to overthink + reanew their structure. Time has changed - as we all got significant proof lately....if the architecture of the Company, the SSDF or whatever doesn't catch up - it won't survive. And along with it - the reliability, and, finally, the existance - of SSDF. ELVIS
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.