Author: pavel
Date: 09:41:01 09/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 2000 at 11:56:15, Peter Davison wrote: >On September 07, 2000 at 11:07:09, pavel wrote: > >>On September 07, 2000 at 10:43:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 06, 2000 at 18:50:05, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On September 06, 2000 at 18:32:35, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 06, 2000 at 17:29:41, Steven Schwartz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Thanks to José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba we have a new >>>>>>poll question. It appears to be a hot topic here now. >>>>>> >>>>>>You are invited to vote at the CCC polling site: >>>>>>http://www.icdchess.com/ccc/poll/index.shtml >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I voted for paying more for the beta testers but I think that it is dependent in >>>>>the job that they do. >>>>> >>>>>If the testers do the job that I read that the chessmaster8000 beta testers >>>>>did(only playing 30 games against different personalities at fast time control) >>>>>then I think that getting the new version is enough(I think that in this case >>>>>they also get the real new version) >>>>> >>>>>If the testers help the programmers by giving ideas and not only play some hours >>>>>against the program then it is not enough. >>>>> >>>>>I could abstain but I felt that I had to vote for the beta testers after I read >>>>>the idea that the programmers do the beta testers a favour. >>>>> >>>>>The beta testers can test the commercial programs and I do not see the big >>>>>advantage of getting it some monthes before the release of a new version when >>>>>beta testers do not get even it because they get only the beta version that they >>>>>test that is usually slightly weaker. >>>>> >>>>>In my case the fact that I was a beta tester of Junior4.x did not save me from >>>>>buying Junior5 in order to test later Junior5.x >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>I can add that I do not blame other people for this fact and it is my fault that >>>>I tried to give ideas when I was not asked for it but I understand that other >>>>people see the job of the beta tester as giving more than games so I had to vote >>>>for the beta testers. >>>> >>>>If there was a clear definition of the beta tester as someone that has a job to >>>>work not more than 10-15 hours and give only games then I could vote in a >>>>different way. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>I personally believe that there is great misconception in the term "beta >>>testing". The correct details of what is to be done is normally that you >>>receive the beta version, and you use it as though it were a production >>>version, but with specific error-reporting requirements. That is how most >>>beta testing is done. In rarer cases, beta testing is used to look for more >>>specific things. IE "will this program install on many different configurations >>>of hardware and operating system versions?" which might be hard to answer in a >>>lab setting. >>> >>>"playing a few games at short time controls" is _not_ "beta testing". Unless >>>someone has coined a new beta testing description that is different from the >>>SE books I use. >>> >>>With what I have read here so far, _most_ are not doing beta testing, and >>>getting a free copy of a program is probably quite fair. Some (Uri for >>>example) go much deeper into things looking for obvious (or not-so-obvious) >>>flaws that need attention. Spending that much time is definitely worth paying >>>for. >>> >>>It would seem that the current beta testing approach isn't working very well, >>>based on the later bugs and bugfix versions released. The testers aren't >>>getting much for their efforts. The programmers aren't getting a lot of effort >>>from the testers. Seems 'equitable' in a way. :) >> >>I agree fully with this, >>beta-testing is not about playing a bunch of games between computer programs. >> >>If that so then the guys from the chessbase and rebel can do it themselves. >>there can be another reason for beta-testers (IMO)-----> >>for example Christian Koch is a beta-tester for "Gandalf" so he is playing a lot >>of games with gandalf against other strong chess playing programs. and then >>posting them in public forums, as a result "promoting" the "gandalf" engine in a >>way to public. This has nothing to do with finding bugs for the programmer. >> >> >>Pavel > >Very well pointed out. It is fascinating to watch the loyalty of "beta-testers" >to particular programs. Almost as if the "beta-tester" has been bought. Then the >way that these "beta-testers" argue and fight over which program is best - not >only that, but argue and fight that other opponent programs are bugged or weak. > >Not so much that programmer fights are an extension of the chess game by other >means, but more that beta-tester fights are an extension of programmer fights by >other means. Extended zero-sum games, by proxy. Group dynamic. > >All very well, until cunning programmers and software companies and academics >realise that the proxy fighting can be won and lost, that this has implications >for their position and revenues, and, importantly, that by _cultivating_ >"beta-testers" with free samples, praise, maybe a little financial support, they >can acquire _numbers_ of supporters who then go on to make their PR for them. > >Note that it is not even remotely relevant whether the "beta-tester" provides >any advice or feedback to the programmer/company. All that matters is that the >PR service has been bought. > >"Beta-testers" are pawns. > >Those fighting this battle are as follows: > >ChessMaster publisher. Who has collected up many willing helpers over the last >few months and uses a paid employee to monitor and post to this newsgroup. > >Bob Hyatt. Who collects support with every download. > >Rebel company. Which has a policy of giving free samples away to 'key' babblers >on the newsgroups. > >ChessBase. Which works in mysterious ways (to me). I worked (as a beta-tester) for some authors and a company. So far chessbase seemed to be have "most professional" attitude. I dont know about other companies........ pavel > > >Victory, as ever, goes not to quality, not to 'right', but to quantity. Which >program/programmer gets the maximum amount of noise made about it. The noise is >a function of the manipulative cultivation of the babblers. > >All pawns.
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.