Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 19:13:26 09/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2000 at 09:53:07, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 09, 2000 at 09:11:27, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I understand now that in most of the cases the beta testers get the commercial >>version of the program that they test so they get some payment. >>When I replied the opinion poll question I thought only about getting the beta >>version without getting the commercial version. >> >>I think that it is better to pay them money for their job when they will have to >>buy the package of beta+ commercial version. >>The reason for it is that not all the beta testers do the same job and I think >>that it is not correct to give the same payement for different jobs. > >What a weird poll. Betatesters deliver very few comments usual that's useful >for a programmer. Most things i see when i am myself following games of DIEP. Hello Vincent: I don't understand why this point was so daily some months ago, and today is the center of an arid endless polemic. I don't understand the final objective for deepenning theologically, sociologically, and psichoanalytically the relationship between a Chess Program Author and "a good or bad group" of fans who wants to call themselves Beta Testers or Real Tester, or something like that. I have called myself "Program Chess Beta Tester" when I am really working in a different computer area. But I know, I am clear of that, I am a very good Beta Tester in my specific computer area. Of course, I have five o six Chess programs of which I am a "Beta Tester". I won't to say what the Programmers Names are because I am respecful and confident to the original Authors. They think, for example, that my Beta testing Hobby is good and useful for them. I have spent hundreds of hours in testing these Chess Programs and you cannot say to me this is a light testing for the Techniques I have applied to evaluate the Quality Software Level of this programs and their strength. In this cases, I have been a Beta Tester of this chess engines, because I tried to look for bugs, weaknesses, desired improvements, etc. etc. Never, never, never, I have received any payment for that because it is a hobby, but a serious hobby. Neither, I have requested any payment for that. Oh God, I think this is a horrible action when you have emailed to a Chess Author offering your services and this Chess Author relies on you and sends his program without costs for you. About Deep2, I can say that you have created a good chess program with a great potencial. Actually, I have it because I am a Deep User nor a Beta Tester. I pay for it. I don't feel bad for that. No, no, no! I am feeling very good of having this Chess Program like a User. I enjoy playing with it and sometimes I have sent any questions about its funtions. Like a user, I have this right. If I send you a feedback in the near future, it is because I want to get improvements like a User nor like a Beta Tester who is always finding bugs and chess weaknesses in the chess programs. > >If i'd pay for that then i'd not be only wasting money, but also i would >be bankrupt within days. Handing out versions (beta or whatever) is >something different. You can't get comment back without people having your >program! > >Over the years i've had with DIEP about 100 betatesters or so, but only >a very few, usually those who ran/run it at the internet, have delivered >good comments on it. > >Usual someone offers to 'betatest' in order to get a version of a program. Yes, this can be true but it can be false. The real truth of these situation, I think, it's these kind of "Beta Testers" only wants to get the big prize before the normal users, and to publish some light results in the Related Forums so the people can see they have a private or a Beta Release before the normal people. I am in the Know of some exceptions like Frank Quisinsky, Mogens Larsen, Volter Piltik, Djordje Vidanovic, Dann Corbit, ChessFun and Jorge Pichard. If you want my Open apologies, I can do it. I have no problems to say that I have failed to Dieter Buerssner, the Yace Author, and Michael Borgstädt, the Little Goliath Author, because I received their Beta Programs and I couldn't execute a Real Control Beta Testing. But, I send to them my apologies by not beeing able to begin the Beta Testing Process. > >Right now i'm spreading the winboard version of DIEP quite easily around, >and so far the useful info i get back is real pathetic. If a betatester >concludes that there sucks something bigtime in diep's eval because it >plays g4? then i'm already real happy. As i can fix *something* then. > This is a value judgment and there is no valid for me if you don't have the Statistics that strengthen this point of view. Do All Chess Programmers agree with your asseveration? Do All Hobby Beta Chess Program Testers make silly observations? As a Diep2 User, do i have to be included in this Group? Yes, it is pathetic this kind of view where the only way is to rely on this Group. >considering the thousands of fixes i do a year, that's only 0.001 part of >the fixes at most. > >Most comment is like: > "diep sucks in closed positions". Well i knew that already! For an average chess player, this is a good judgment, because he doesn't have to specify or show the specific positions where the Diep2 Position Evaluation is wrong. But, I have never send to you this kind of useless comments. As a User and as a Beta Tester I could do any kind of Comments. I think like Billy Joel says "ONLY HUMANS" and we can be sometimes very intelligent but also we can sometimes behave like the Lucy's relatives, one of the most ancient found fossil and it looked like a primitive human. So, in this sense our thoughts like humans can be complex and brights or singles and useless an so on. > >The best 'bugfixes' are comments usual from other programmers, like >the comment of Steffen recently. Also Bob has helped me over the years >bigtime, especially when talking about the parallellisation of DIEP. > >There are exceptions of course on this betatester picture, who *do* >regurarly give useful comments. It's hard to find such betatesters. > >Even harder as that is to find people who want to auto232 play your program >against other programs like Shredder, Fritz & others. Just 1 or 2 games >is not what i mean then. > >Someone who wants to run DIEP at an auto232 player and send me back >results of the auto232 player can ring me any time of >the day! > >>Here is an example. >>Suppose beta testers are asked to give games from some known positions against >>known opponents at 1 hour/game time control. >>Suppose one of them gives 100 games and another one gives only 10 games(nobody >>of them gives more information). >> >>I think that the tester who gave 100 games should get better payment. > >Oh well. What to do with 10000 games of 1 0 at the icc? > >Also what if 90 of those 100 games are exaclty the same bookline? > >Secondly, what if those games are all played with an older version, >despite you sending already a new version to the betatester? > >Or what if you already fixed the bug, or what if the 'bug' is not a bug >but a feature which is interpreted wrong? > >Now we didn't talk about the many silly reports, which i don't mind as >i'm happy that there is a *small* chance that such a report can be good. > >The average betatester doesn't even have 2000 rating or something, and >even if it's 2200 then still this means he's tactical insane compared to >the program, so the average 'this went wrong' report needs at least >to be carefully checked whether it's true in advance. > For example, I can tell you, I am a Fide player very good ranked beyond 2300 and the mentioned condition is not my case. I have to accept that I train with my favorite Programs. Of course, like a User, Diep2 is one of my favorite ones. >Apart from that see the many posts of mate in 2 or 4 or something here at >icc. > >I don't care whether DIEP solves a mate in 4 in 0.001 or 0.01 seconds or in 2 >seconds. > >It's just not interesting! > >>If you tell all the testers to give the same computer time you cannot use some >>testers who have less time and cannot use efficiently some testers who have more >>computer time to give(because they have more computers or because their >>computers are not busy in other tasks). > >if i'd had to pay a betatester i would sign a contract and i would >assume he'd be 12 hours a day busy >testing my program. So i would expect daily reports then with things >being wrong. Because if i do somethign like that myself with my own program, >then each 5 minutes i remember something that's wrong in the program! > >Greetings, >Vincent > >>Uri Additionally. I keep private my Beta Testing with these Chess Programs because it is only a Hobby and I don't want to win the American Lottery for this. I think when an Author of a Chess Program has sent to me his Chess Program is an act of trust (This is my value judgment in this posting :) ) I think to have his program by nothing it's a great gift for me. Only that. If I have made the decision to Test the Chess Programs, second, to send to the Chess Authors my feedbacks, third, to send them my Testing Results, fourth, to train with these programs, fith, the Authors think my hobby job is useful for them, and so on, I cannot share the point of view that my hobby "Beta Testing" job is light or useless. I think as much the Chess Programmers as the "Beta testers" shouldn't participate in these controversial and arid positions. The fact is the relation Chess Programmer - Beta Chess Hobby Tester has existed for several years. What is the real problem with this? To be paid or not to be paid, Shakespeare should begin to collect his payments for his rights. :) I think the mentioned "relationship" is a personal matter of the persons who establish it. No more, no less. Vincent, I am a great Diep2 Fan, and I have an excellent relation with you, because I know you are a tremendous Chess Player and a Bright Chess Programmer. So I hope you can see my real position about this thopic through my personal Email that I sent to you and through this Posting about that. Mo more, no less again. For the last paragraph I know you are a Great Guy, and I hope you can understand my position. I don't want to break good relations in these sense because we don't have the agreement in this thopic. I can say you I am a little sad because I think People in this Forum can try another interesting things about Chess Computer. Best Regards.
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.