Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:26:05 09/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 1999 at 17:47:29, Will Singleton wrote: >On September 28, 1999 at 11:23:06, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On September 28, 1999 at 09:19:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 28, 1999 at 09:10:41, Steven Schwartz wrote: >>> >>>>I glanced over at the current poll (SSDF/Chessbase) this >>>>morning to find that, so far, it is 55 to 1 (with 16 abstentions) >>>>in favor of no improper Chessbase influence over SSDF decisions >>>>and testing. >>>> >>>>Considering the serious allegations posted by one of the >>>>members, that is a pretty firm vote of confidence for the SSDF. >>>> >>>>My only puzzlement is why 16 abstentions? Last year we had a >>>>poll about some Fritz results on the SSDF, and there was also >>>>a high percentage of abstentions. What is it about SSDF questions >>>>that causes a high percentage of abstentions? >>>>- Steve (ICD/Your Move) >>>>P.S. If you have not yet voted, please do so by clicking on >>>>the "Computer Chess Resource Center" link at the top or bottom >>>>of this page. >>> >>> >>>I can answer for one of those. I simply don't have any trustworthy data. >>>I refuse to condemn ChessBase (nor would I clear them either) without some >>>firm data. I have heard things about them that I don't like (IE the rumor >>>that they prevented everyone from having access to a quad xeon machine at >>>the WCCC this year) but rumors aren't enough make me want to condemn them >>>outright... >>> >>>that was my reason for abstaining... I would rather wait until I see something >>>concrete... >> >>I agree. That is basically why I abstained. There was no way to answer the >>question without speculating on the practices of an organization that I do not >>directly work with. That made no sense to me. What is a more interesting >>question is: Why were there not more people abstaining since that seemed to be >>the only reasonable answer? >> >>KarinsDad :) > >We are entitled to an educated guess. We don't live in a vacuum, and opinions >can be formed without proof, assuming familiarity with the subject. Since I >have no evidence to doubt their practices and good faith, and do not generally >subscribe to "conspiracy theories," a vote of confidence is preferable to a vote >of uncertainty. > >Will I didn't view it as a vote for uncertainty. I viewed it as a vote for "I have absolutely no idea whether this is true or false." A vote for "true" or a vote for "false" would be just as bad IMHO, in the absence of anything concrete to base this on. IE I didn't view this as a "maybe" vote at all... it was a "who the hell knows?" vote...
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.