Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:59:44 09/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2000 at 22:13:26, Arturo Ochoa wrote:
>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.
A number of notes
- the amount of time YOU invest doesn't tell anything about
the usefullness for
the programmer, but let's face it. i need to watch days to just
realize a big problem in diep.
- as i said in my email, not all betatesters are the same. There are
a few exceptions, really less as 2 hand full of exceptions.
The rest is just out for a copy of the program and doesn't realize
that just giving a SINGLE line of comments is already better as nothing.
I am missing any posts of Schroeder, Friedel, Weiner and others here,
but i'm sure they get a 1000 fold more of those questions.
>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.
Let's put it this way. The 'asking for a version' betatesters were not likely
to reply to this thread :)
>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.
Exactly.
All my comments was not regarding to you, the persons i meant aren't
in CCC nor rgcc even.
Note that one of my best betatesters is a clubmember of mine. Only
shortly he has something called email. Not to mention that he'll not
soon surf the net. internet is expensive in netherlands.
>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.
I'm not expecting *anything* from you, but i heart great stories from
others.
When i say 'betatester' i'm talking about persons who got a free copy of
DIEP, who would deliver useful information (their promise) but who in
reality didn't deliver a thing. If i get back 2 one-liners then that's
already much.
>>
>>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
I'm not asking for any apology or what, just people don't realize
that if you have released in the past a program that was shareware,
which is on millions of CDs (no one registering btw), that you sure
know how much gets copied and you sure receive thousands of emails
of people begging for a version, update, or some even have rung me up
at 11 PM Sunday evening to beg for a new shareware release of diep for
his 386 computer, as the old DOS shareware release didn't work.
Now my phone number isn't private obviously as i used to be competition
leader of Utrecht and nowadays i'm secretary of
one of the biggest chessclubs, so my phone number is in books which
every chessplayer can get his hands on.
I usually don't mind if people ring me up, but if someone asks for a 386
release????????????????????????????????????????
>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.
You should be the last to apologies. Betatesters i'm referring to are
that lazy that they don't even follow computerchess.
>>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?
Remember, the old diep version is on millions of CDroms (without
anyone registering btw, so it tells also something about mentality
of people) and my email adress is still valid.
I guess only a few are in the same position, but most
likely chessbase&MCS&schroeder
receive a multiple of questions i get.
Note that now that DOS is getting a bit more outdated i tend to get less
email.
After WMCC 1997 i got a few days about 1000 private
emails a day. Most real short, so that was real quick done,
and in general i don't mind getting email.
Last WMCC it was only a small part of that daily.
>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.
My generalisation clearly is not about all testers. I'm talking about
the large majority of it, which is larger as most realize.
Chessprograms don't get run by 10 people, but by millions. Only a couple
of hundreds of thousands run daily chessprograms. Only a few of those
are in the rgcc/ccc and or other computerchess scenes.
>>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.
Oh well if i reveal the titles of the persons in question you sure
aren't talking about the 'average' player. Also i'm not expecting to
get useful comments from a 1200 rated in chess respect.
But if i send a version which directly crashed everywhere, but i don't
receive a single line of comments then i realize it was sent to a collector.
>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.
Oh well after you start getting comment then this can be subclassed of course,
but in general any comment is appreciated.
Like here at CCC you see all kind of things, but actually none of that
is useful for my chessprogram.
>>
>>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.
Unlucky many people try to win the same lottery with chessprograms
over and over again; they test the same testpositions over and over again
at it. Some testsets it's even true that tuning for them means your program
is doing WORSE in games. Good examples are BS2830 testset, which is completely
anti-positional. If your program plays moves as Nb1 'just for fun' then
you can shredder those versions directly! It gotta see that black's queen
gets into problems. If you don't evaluate that, then i'm amazed that
some programs which obviously don't evaluate that too much, solve Nb1 at
lightspeed!
Other thing is lctii position Bb5, i have had versions of DIEP where it
played Bb5 from ply1 and on, but as a human i get scared to death actually
after bb5 bxb5 axb5 qb6! only after realizing that you can play Qd7 and
that you don't need to fear other things, which all together is a ply of
8 to 12, then it's clear that bb5 is a superb move.
Yet all DIEP versions solving it from ply==1 and on appeared to definitely
do something wrong in the bishop vs knight tuning.
The current version needs 10 ply to find it (and 30 seconds or so)
and i'm real happy with the bishop vs knight tuning in this version!
>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.
In this whole threat when talking about the 'general' betatester i sure
didn't mean you!
The fact that you post things and that you're busy with several things already
means you're doing a hell of a lot more as the average person.
Quite obvious the fact that we're nowadays in CCC is a big disadvantage
over the past. rgcc is much better accessible. Instead of a couple of
hundreds of thousands of people now and then (sporadically though) reading
the group, we now are talking here with a bunch of nerds, weirdo's and
fanatics.
>For the last paragraph I know you are a Great Guy, and I hope you can understand
thanks for the compliment, but remember that the number of people
who just say 'something' is much larger as the number of people who
really do something. You belong probably to the group who can't imagine
that the real world is a bit faster as your own study world!
I remember large numbers of students, friends and people who i
now and then see who 'betatested' windows2000, yet the feedback to
m$ from these group is probably nearly non-existing!
So apart from a few fanatic testers who can't imagine how happy most
people in the world are busy with just collecting a number of programs,
there is this large group of people who obviously won't spend more as
a few hours a month to chess, not to mention computerchess.
>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
Everyone his opinion!
If you ask at the average dutch university how much a new toyota
camry is costing in netherlands, then the large majority will say a price
which is not even close.
Betatesting you can see as something serious, but also as 'i download a program
and if i want to say something then i'll email a note back'; this
note then usual is at most: "great that i can use your program!".
>I think People in this Forum can try another interesting things about Chess
>Computer.
Exactly. Measure the usefullness of the average discussion in this
already bigtime nerd group and then you'll know the usefullness of the
all day comments, if there are comments anyway.
We really miss Thorsten Czubs emails here, he says a lot, but
at least a big part of what he says makes sense.
Yet the fact is that many people feel somehow frustrated/insulted themselves
just too quick if just a single thing is said that's no good for the person
in question. Especially a lot of university researchers are outraged if
out of a 1000 line story a few small things are a bit bad written down.
Those guys don't make a chance in the real world. Perhaps that's why they're
in this group!
>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.