Author: blass uri
Date: 04:05:27 04/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2000 at 18:45:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. There are mistakes with Auto232 but my impression is that the number of mistakes is small and having games with auto232 is better than having no games at all. I guess that the difference in rating because of autoplayer errors is less than 20 elo. Uri
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.