Author: Chessfun
Date: 14:49:57 10/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2003 at 17:25:45, Ed Schröder wrote: >On October 19, 2003 at 12:22:15, Chessfun wrote: > >>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. > >Hi Sarah, > >I fundamentally and respectfully disagree with you. No, I don't know if Deep >Blue JR is auto232 compatible, but your are surely smart enough not having >understood the real question, the express will to have a program really tested, >if necessary manual. That surely would have been the case with Deep Blue JR, >even now, meaning manually. Hi Ed, True enough, you could also add it was done with Chessmaster previously. If I were a member of the SSDF though, knowing that repeatedly Chessmaster have been asked to install an autoplayer I wouldn't be happy about play a couple of hundred manual games. Not being happy about it don't even look at the problems involved and the accuracy of such a testing method. >By not testing CM the list loses creditability, you can't skip a potential >candiadate no.1 without damaging your reputation. Next, the conspiracy voices >will become louder and louder. Last, there is hypocrisy, see the Deep Blue JR >example. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I don't see why you would believe CM to be a potential candidate?. From what I know it would be lucky using it's default settings to make the top 10. >>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 SSDF legally can do what it wants, the fact they show respect for the wishes >of programmers is something entirely different. Well actually CM9000 will auto 232 in it's own interface using it's own book, it's a bit of a pain to set-up and monitor but it can be done. >>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. > >I don't think that either, it is just the "manual play" prospect that kills the >CM testing. As much as I can understand that, one on the other hand should >realize there is a price to pay, the price of losing creditability. IMHO the SSDF loose no creditability by not testing CM9000. There may well be the idiot posts accusing them of working for CB but as I say those are posts by idiots. 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.