Author: Mike Hood
Date: 10:32:52 03/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 2002 at 10:30:02, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On March 28, 2002 at 08:34:44, Kurt Utzinger wrote: > >>In my opinion, the SSDF people are doing a great job. And be honest: have you >>ever seen any programs placed at the top of the SSDF-list that did not belong >>the best ones of the world? >>Kurt > >If we already know which programs belong to the best of the world and which ones >don't, what's the point of the SSDF again? ;) > >(Note: I'm not saying at all the SSDF-guys are doing a bad job. I'm not familiar >with their testing scenario so I don't have any opinion on this.) > >Sargon Reading between the lines, I have the impression that the SSDF enters new programs into the rating pool based on three criteria: 1. New versions of programs already in the list qualify automatically for testing. 2. New programs are "pre-tested". ie, they play a small number of games with a new program; if the results look reasonable, they give it a full test of hundreds of games; if it plays abysmally, they don't waste their time. 3. Here's the crunch; since the SSDF is a voluntary organization which doesn't pay salaries, they're unable to buy every chess program on the market. They don't test a new program unless the author and/or publisher of the program sends them a free copy. Actually, there's a fourth criteria, cloesely related to the third. Certain primadonnas out there say "I don't want my program to be tested unless I can be at the top of the list. So don't include my program in the list!" If you're one of these people, I hope you're reading this message, because it's people like you who weaken the value of the SSDF list.
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.