Author: Les Walker
Date: 05:57:48 11/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1998 at 04:34:59, Amir Ban wrote: >On November 10, 1998 at 00:14:21, Les Walker wrote: > >>On November 09, 1998 at 23:56:24, Detlef Pordzik wrote: >> >>>On November 09, 1998 at 08:59:19, Micheal Cummings wrote: >>> >>>>Looking at the lastest SSDF rankings I was wondering where CM5500 was, the only >>>>ones they have are CM5000 ranked 26th then CM4000 at 51st. >>>> >>>>Can someone please tell me why even though CM6000 is very new, why there is no >>>>mention to adding it in the December ratings and CM5500 was not tested at all. >>>>and that program has been out for a while. I find the SSDF ratings very >>>>incomplete. and mis-guiding. >>>> >>>>If someone can answer why the most bought chess program versions in the world >>>>are not tested then I would like to know why please. >>> >>>While printing the new SSDF list I recognized something similar and asked Mr. >>>Karlsson in a email concerning this today. >>> >>>I doubt, I'll get an answer. >>>" No autoplayer " is absolutely no reason for my opinion, not to test a brandnew >>>product of this value. >>>As weather de Koning nor Distributor Mindscape have the slightest lobby down >>>there, nobody will have a look at the settings, that make sense. So, if at all, >>>CM will be sent into games with the standard settings - of 1 MB Hash tables - >>>against progs who refuse to start below 48 MB. >>>But, as said, they didn't care the least about this in the CM 5.000 Vs - they >>>didn't even use CM 5.500 - why should they use CM 6.000 at all ? >>> >>>ELVIS >> >> >>In my opinion, if the Chessmasters were included in the list, and everything >>were set fairly, i.e. hardware, software settings, etc., Chessmaster 6000 >>would be number one, with Chessmaster 5555 being 2nd or 3rd on the list. >>It is also my opinion that the Chessmasters are not included for this very >>reason. I believe it is a "smart" business decision. >> > >The above sounds like suspicion of manipulation by someone. Would you at least >spell out who you are suspecting so they have the option to defend ? I do not suggest manipulation by anyone. How have I suggested this? > >Just my opinion on this post and Detlef's: Apparently neither Mindscape nor >Johan de Koening have any interest in being listed by the SSDF, just as they >don't seem to be interested in attending the ICCA world championships. Otherwise >they would have provided an autoplayer years ago. Personally, I think the autoplayer issue is BS, especially in light of the current controvery of autoplayers. If it were my rating list, I would truely want to know which program is strongest. It is the nature of computer/chess enthusiests. Tell me you are not interested in knowing who the true champion is. BTW - I have also heard the "it takes time and money" argument. It does not hold water either. Kind Regards, Les Walker > >I wonder if the SSDF care to confirm this. > >Amir
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.