Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:45:15 04/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2000 at 12:16:59, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 12, 2000 at 10:28:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 12, 2000 at 04:54:39, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On April 12, 2000 at 03:51:56, Ritter Rost wrote: >>> >>>>>And I'm just saying again, "What does it matter to you?" >>>> >>>>I am interested in an independent and strong SSDF which does not have to fear >>>>legal threats if they want to publish test results. This matters a lot to me. >>>> >>>>>Are you being bullied or prosecuted - No >>>>>Are the people being "bullied & prosecuted" publishing the results anyway - Yes. >>>> >>>>No they are not. See several posts of Bertil Eklunds on the matter. Ossi Weiner >>>>forbade them to publish the results of Genius, Zarkov and WChess. >>>> >>>> >>>>>My view from here is you are Anonomously trying to bring a private conflict into >>>>>a public forum. >>>> >>>>For computer chess the authenticity and independence of the SSDF as the only >>>>major testing institution is not a private matter. Nor is the behaviour of the >>>>major software publishers. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>The major achievement of this is a lot of discussion about the legality of your >>>>>original post & the possibility that CCC or the Moderators could be in legal >>>>>trouble because of Your post. >>>> >>>>CCC is a healthy, strong and commercially independent forum which can survive a >>>>little controversy as long as it remains free of _personal_ attacks, Tina. Some >>>>excitement here and there may even help to raise the number of visits/members. >>>> >>>>Furthermore there is no need to refer to my unthoughtful original post which has >>>>been thankfully deleted. I am simply quoting SSDF member Bertil Eklund in this >>>>thread. >>>> >>>>Bottom line: I would like the SSDF to be allowed to publish all test results. At >>>>the moment this is not the case. Bertil Eklund said that Ossi Weiner asked them >>>>to suppress the results of Genius, Zarkov and WChess, >>>> >>>>Ritter >>> >>>I agree with your entire post. >>> >>>What I don't understand is why Ossi doesn't want the results of these programs >>>published. They're all strong programs and I expect they would all end up within >>>a few points of the top program. It seems like that would be terrific >>>advertising for Ossi & co. >>> >>>-Tom >> >> >>If you read the email posted here, the answer is obvious. He believes that >>the auto232 software gives programs the opportunity to bias the results by >>various means (several have reported moves played under auto232 that are >>absolutely impossible to reproduce in testing.) > >I did read the e-mail, but I dismissed the reason as BS. If Ossi was really so >pissed about autoplayer trickery, he wouldn't have eventually allowed Shredder's >results in the list. And if I were him and I was convinced cheating was going >on, I would raise the issue (LOUDLY) in a public forum. If I had solid evidence, >a lot of people would get pissed at my competition... > >-Tom There _is_ a body of anecdotal evidence that suggests that auto232 both (a) has problems and (b) is subject to abuse. Several have looked at SSDF games where a program makes an outright blunder than can never be reproduced. Others have reported about trickery in using auto232 to bumfuzzle the opponent's learning, or break off a lost game, etc... Whether it happens a lot, a little, or not at all I can't say. But where there is smoke there is fire. Or in this case "trash". :) Auto232 is trash.
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.