Author: Chessfun
Date: 14:48:16 03/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 2002 at 17:45:21, Mike Hood wrote: >On March 28, 2002 at 14:07:28, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 28, 2002 at 13:32:52, Mike Hood wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>There are people who say that they do not want the ssdf to test >>a specific version because they are going to make an update >>in a short time >>(it was the case with tiger13 and with the first Fritz7 and >>the first fritz6 and I see no problem with it). >> >>I do not think that they weaken the value of the list. >> >>I do not care if there are people who do not want >>to let the ssdf to test their program because they believe >>their program is not going to be in the top. >> >>I assume that if there are people with this behaviour they are not >>only not number 1 but also not number 2 and not number 3. >> >>Uri > >The couple of cases that you mention, Uri, are fully justified, in my opinion. I >was referring to cases a couple of years ago when companies that sold chess >programs asked for their products not to be tested because they thought (for >whatever reasons) that they were being disadvantaged by SSDF. I think your "dig" was fairly obvious the first time...not sure why you needed to make it as isn't it old news? and as always isn't there two sides to every story?. Still if you think you need to be clearer.. Sarah.
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.