Author: Mike Hood
Date: 15:09:31 03/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 2002 at 17:48:16, Chessfun wrote: >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. Sorry, Sarah. I guess I was over-stating my point. When I read Uri's post I had the impression that he didn't know what I was referring to, but if I read it again now I realise I was probably wrong.
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.