Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 08:31:37 04/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2000 at 02:20:57, Bertil Eklund wrote: >On April 11, 2000 at 19:25:40, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On April 10, 2000 at 16:54:31, Bertil Eklund wrote: >> >>>On April 10, 2000 at 07:39:08, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>I and also my distributor Ossi Weiner already agreed to publish Shredder's >>>>results together with the games in the current SSDF list, before the current >>>>list was published on Saturday. >>>> >>>>Stefan >>> >>>Hi! >>> >>>As soon as we are allowed to publish the results of all Millenium engines >>>Shredder4 is included. One hour before the publishing of the list we received a >>>letter, that said we wasn't allowed to publish the results for any other program >>>(CC:Stefan Meyer-Kahlen). >>> >>>I think it is of big interest to include not only the excellent Shredder4 but >>>also Zarkow, Wchess and Genius. >>> >>>Bertil >> >>For whatever reason(s), there is not a problem with Shredder's rating being >>published, but there is a problem with some of the others being published. It >>seems unreasonable to refuse to report the rating of one chess engine because >>you disagree with the licence agreement of a different engine. I suggest that >>the SSDF take what it can get and publish Shredder's rating in its lists, now >>that they have permission to, and continue to lobby re: the other engines. >> >>Dave > >Hi! > >I strongly disagree. Do you really think this is fair? Everyone knows the >strength of Shredder4. For me it looks that they for some reason don't like the >publishing of the results for the "weaker" programs. > >If Cb released one weaker engine, should we don't publish the results for that >engine? > >Bertil I think people can infer that the programs are weak from the fact that they don't want the SSDF to report testing results for them. Yes, other reasons are claimed (whose legitimacy is open to question... so I encourage ChessBase to make their autoplayer code open-source to remove any doubts -- and if there is non-proprietary auto-player software, why does SSDF allow proprietary auto-player software to be used?), but I think that most people who care about this stuff enough to even know about the SSDF list are already aware of what's going on with the Millennium package (Shredder is billed as the strong engine: 1999 WCCC champion, and a few supporting engines are also included). That impression, true or not, isn't going to change until the so-called weaker engines are tested, so I don't think you have to worry about people thinking that Genius 6.5 is terribly strong relative to Shredder or something. If you find that people frequently ask you why the other engines that come in the Millennium package aren't rated by the SSDF, you guys add to your FAQ that the publisher does not permit it with their licence, and that the organization has been threatened with legal action if they were to do so. At that point, a potential customer can make their own decision about whether they want to purchase something from this publisher or not. I think it comes down to my feeling that SSDF exists best as an independent organization, like e.g. Consumer Reports. If you start picking sides to favour or disfavour somebody, that brings into question the legitimacy of your list. Instead, publish everything you're allowed to... and this now includes a rating for Shredder 4. IMO, the rating list should include the companion programs to Shredder too, but I'm not a Swedish lawyer, and this issue isn't so important that I'm going to suggest that people put themselves at risk over it. It's pretty easy to indicate one's opinion that the licence agreement sucks: don't buy it, and further, when the topic comes up on CCC or elsewhere, stick two cents in about how the licence agreement sucks. That's what I do, and if somebody wants to sue me for expressing that opinion, I'm pretty confident that they will lose in court. Dave
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.