Author: blass uri
Date: 04:41:37 04/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2000 at 07:35:45, blass uri wrote: >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. I do not say that stefan supports law suite threats but shredder was connected with law suite threats that I do not like and the millenium who sell shredder still forbid publishing rating of other chess programs). > >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.