Author: Detlef Pordzik
Date: 13:42:10 05/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 1998 at 22:46:29, Paul Petersson wrote: >On May 04, 1998 at 18:43:54, Detlef Pordzik wrote: > >>On May 04, 1998 at 08:12:23, Jouni Uski wrote: >> >>>From different SSDF posts I get the feeling, that probably SSDF will >>>stop their ratinglist service soon! And persons like Ossi Weiner and Ed >>>Schröder are speeding up this by their childish attacks against SSDF! >>>Additionally also some SSDF person have lost their computer chess >>>interest (I am myself as interested as 15 years ago!). >>>Let's hope that SSDF still manages at least two additional years! And >>>they need our all support... >> >>As I've allways took side for the anonymus testin' people within the >>SSDF - I now take the chance to comment this astonishing reaction from >>my point of view : >> >>if it ain't possible to accept a done mistake, such as in case of the >>very unlucky acceptance of the CB hardware, and to correct this mistake > >What CB hardware??? We haven´t accepted any hardware from CB. If you >refer to the 64 MB requirement, then I can only say that it was >inevitable. All new chessprograms that run under Win95 need more than 32 >MB. Otherwise they get to small hashtanbles. For example: Shredder 2 >gets 12 MB hash on a 32 MB machine, but Genius 5 gets 31 MB. On a >P200MMX Shredder quickly runs out of hashspace on a 32 MB machine. Would >that have been fair!? Furthermore, Fritz 5 was not the first program to >run on a 64 MB machine. That honour goes to Nimzo 98. > >The CB autoplayer was a compromise. It was the only way that we could >get a great number of games in a short period of time. In the next >SSDF-list Fritz 5 will have played over 400 games. If we were to play >that many games manually, we couldn´t have put Fritz 5 on the list >before Fritz 6 was out... The fact that we accepted the secret >autoplayer for Fritz 5 doesn´t mean that it will be accepted for Fritz >6. > >>by replacing the results by ones, done/ made new - as usually - not to >>speak about an apologize towards whomever...... >> >>but instead - and here I speak about the responsibles within the SSDF - >>react >>like Mimoses in the rain towards any critiques.... > >The SSDF can take criticism from anyone but it is *only* responsible >towards its members. *Only* members decides. > >And, as long as the members of the SSDF wants the list, it will continue >to be made. > >Paul Dear Paul, are we goin' round in circles now ? I think you don't want to teach me / us seriously about the 64 MB terms ?? The ONLY question - dear Paul - is the use of a thing, you call a " compromise " - the special, unique auto- player....of Chess Base THAT's what we are talkin' about. Nobody is doin' suggestions on what might happen with F6 or maybe F8, that ain't relevant herein. Relevant - for me - to believe in neutral testing competitions - would be, if THIS ORIGINAL, unique autoplayer could be tested by some neutral people with knowledge. So then we could all know - if there is a " something about it " - or just not. And I don't see much worth in the CB offer these days, to send - new - autoplayers to some people to have them " inspected "..... ELVIS
This page took 0.02 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.