Author: blass uri
Date: 04:35:45 04/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2000 at 06:40:33, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >On April 16, 2000 at 16:25:06, Bertil Eklund wrote: > >>On April 15, 2000 at 21:09:45, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On April 13, 2000 at 13:37:13, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>> >>>>On April 12, 2000 at 21:56:06, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>>>>I suspect that Millennium GmbH would have an extremely tough time winning in >>>>>court against the SSDF if they did publish results for Genuis 6.5, WChess, etc. >>>>>Nonetheless, it appears that they feel that bullying independent citizen groups >>>>>is a successful marketing strategy. I can only shake my head. >>>> >>>>look : ssdf published results that are not played out on the base >>>>of a fair competition. the results have been influenced by the autoplayer >>>>device. >>> >>>As far as I can tell, the competition is fair. >>> >>>>millennium company has nothing against a fair competition. >>>>if the ssdf e.g. would (as they have done over the years with the dedicated >>>>machines) >>>>test by hand, nobody would complain. >>>>but they use the chessbase autoplayer device. >>>>the results of this device differ from the device other companies use. >>>>therefore the results are somehow irrelevant. >>>>but the ssdf do nowhere print in their publications that their results >>>>have been "arranged" or "generated" with the >>>>chessbase autoplayer device which is not generally trusted by agreement >>>>of all programmer paricipating in the list. >>> >>>Please list the names of chess program software developers who have programs on >>>the SSDF list but do not trust ChessBase's autoplayer in particular. >>> >>>>they do only publish numbers. stupid numbers. >>>>i see no other way for millennium company to forbid to publish those silly >>>>data, than threatening them. licence agreements in europe do count for swedish >>>>people to. you can believe me. it might be different in US, but many things >>>>are different in US. >>>> >>>>i would do exactly the same if it would be my product. >>>>if somebody would publish lies about my girl-friend or lies about my >>>>friends, he would get also similar kind of answer. >>>>printing lies is not a fair way of competition and not a fair way >>>>of an "independant organisation". >>>> >>>>>Dave >>> >>>You've accused Chessbase's autoplayer of distorting results in the past -- even >>>as long as two years ago -- and while you didn't post on that topic for a while, >>>it looks like you've jumped on that bandwagon again. Why don't you reply to >>>this message, and flat-out accuse ChessBase of writing autoplayer software that >>>fraudulently gives programs that are distributed by them an advantage? I can >>>only hope that they might then sue you for defamation, because then you might >>>learn from that experience that you should be more responsible about what you >>>say, and that you should either have actual facts to back up such a serious >>>allegation of mispropriety or not make it in the first place. >>> >>>Dave >> >>Hi! >> >>Read the excellent letters from Djordje and Enrique (in english) >>in Computerschach-forum >> >>http://www.computerschach.de/forum/index.html >> >>Bertil > >I am very sorry that this discussion was taken to another, unmoderated forum. I >got attacked in those postings and I don't quite understand why they were not >posted here. They were deleted exactly for this reason. insults are not allowed here and you did nothing wrong. > >I am also very sorry that the authors of those postings apparently didn't get my >point of view and I am afraid that there is not much I can do about it. > >Stefan I do not support law suites threats but I agree with the point of view of stefan. The main problem with the ssdf is that not all the games are public and it is impossible to know if they are mistakes in the not public games. I prefer to see also list based only on public games The statistical error will be bigger but I can trust more the results when all the games are public and I believe that other errors (not only because of autoplayer are going to be smaller). I remember a case when Junior5(p200) was slowed down by a factor of 3 in some games against Rebel8(p90) because the tester ran another program in the same time. I told the tester about the problem and he had to repeat 4 games. If the games are not public it is impossible to find these errors. I do not know the size of error because of mistakes It is possible that it is small but you cannot blame people for not trusting it when they have no possibility to check it. I do not understand what is the problem of the ssdf to do all the new games public. Can someone from the ssdf explain what is the problem? I think it is easy to send a pgn file of the games after playing. 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.