Author: Chessfun
Date: 09:22:15 10/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2003 at 11:41:21, Ed Schröder wrote: >On October 19, 2003 at 10:37:05, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On October 19, 2003 at 10:21:41, Michael P. Nance Sr. wrote: >> >>>On October 19, 2003 at 08:43:30, David H. McClain wrote: >>> >>>>Gentlemen, >>>> >>>>I may not be alone with these thoughts but it is incomprehensible that >>>>Chessmater 9000 is continually not included on your list. It has been available >>>>for more than a year. You are welcome to have my legal copy of Chessmaster if >>>>that is the problem. With the SSDF list shown on a ChessBase owned web site one >>>>begins to wonder whether including Chessmaster has not been allowed by Chessbase >>>>because it gives very strong competition to Chessbase products. >>>> >>>>SSDF continues to ignore Chessmaster 9000 as does Chessbase while other truly >>>>independent testers test Chessmaster regularly and without preference. Is the >>>>SSDF list truly independent? The impressions being formed by many of us >>>>regarding this continual "oversight" are not favorable. Can anyone on SSDF give >>>>an honest and reasonable explanation or has that not been allowed either? >>>> >>>>The integrity of the SSDF list, in my opinion, continues to degrade as an >>>>independent chess program test organization regardless of the many fine people >>>>that volunteer. Perhaps the real name of the SSDF list should be SSDF list, an >>>>affiliate of Chessbase, Inc. You are insulting the intelligence of many that >>>>attend and contribute to this forum by continually omitting the latest >>>>Chessmaster versions from your list. >>>> >>>>DHM >>>\ >>>I think You hit on the quent essential Issue. This un-resovled Problem has been >>>gone over,complained about, and agrued about time and time again. It has been >>>put to rest,and keeps resurfacing over and over again. Chessmaster is a Chess >>>Program,the positives and negatives concerning It really aren't imporant. Is an >>>absorption By Chessbase the end result here? Something to think about.>>>>Mike > >>Maybe someone from SSDF will answer you. Meanwhile I will give my guess. >>Chessmaster 9000 does not support auto232. The only way to play it would be >>manually and that is unrealistic to ask of SSDF operators. They could play "The >>King" engine in another GUI but without it's own book. This again is not >>desireable in my opinion. The King engine uses a different type of end game >>tablebases that only it/Chessmaster GUI can deal with. I would also like to see >>Chessmaster on the SSDF list but the fault lies with the company that produces >>it not SSDF and I don't believe Chessbase has anything to do with it. >>Just my opinion/guess. >>Jim > >All valid points. However, there is still one question to answer: it is known >the SSDF folks in the past have asked Feng-Hsiung Hsu to test Deep Blue JR. Do >you think this program has an auto232 interface? > >My best, > >Ed AFAIK no details of the SSDF conversations with Feng-Hsiung Hsu are known so who is to say that auto 232 wasn't a requirement. Either way a couple of other comments. CM 9000 in a CB gui AFAIK will use the standard form of Tablebases as they are driven by the interface. Not sure about probing when more pieces are on the board. Is it not a requirement that the manufacturer UBI Soft submit their program for testing. IOW can the SSDF test and publish results for a program without the manufacturers consent?. The manufacturer were they to want the SSDF to test Chessmaster could in theory convert the standard CM book to ctg format. I don't think it's as simple as the SSDF have no interest in testing CM9000 and the reason being no auto 232 support. 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.