Author: Detlef Pordzik
Date: 16:04:39 05/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 1998 at 20:05:46, Paul Petersson wrote: >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 ? Dear Paul, >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). See : here's the difference. We won't be able to argue that out - you got your opinion, I got mine - noone has a real proof, pityfully. So the whole thing remains spectaculative.... >>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? Vist his site.....to get an overview of his opinion for yourself. >>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. > Well, see above 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.