Author: Paul Petersson
Date: 17:05:46 05/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 1998 at 16:42:10, Detlef Pordzik wrote: >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´m not >I think you don't want to teach me / us seriously about the 64 MB terms >?? It´s really hard to understand what you mean, since you´re intentionaly very vague. >The ONLY question - dear Paul - What you call the "The ONLY question" is really no question anymore (se below). >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. This is what Ed and Enrique did. Ed concluded that the CB autoplayer was OK. But perhaps you don´t think Ed is neutral enough? >And I don't see much worth in the CB offer these days, to send - new - >autoplayers to some people to have them " inspected "..... A very convenient attitude. It´s difficult to argue against someone´s beliefs. Paul > >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.