Author: Paul Petersson
Date: 18:23:12 05/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1998 at 19:04:39, Detlef Pordzik wrote: >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.... > It really doesn´t have to be unless you want it to be. Your suspicion that CB gave the SSDF a different autoplayer than Enrique, I find a bit paranoid. Ed could send the same specialversion of Rebel to us to verify if he´d like. But if you don´t trust us than none of this will satisfy you, I guess. >>>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. I think I know his opinion in these matters very well, and I respect it very much. He has more or less accepted that booking is a reality that´s difficult to completely protect against. He wants the CB autoplayer to be public, and so do I. This will hopefully happen in a not to distant future. Paul > >>>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.