Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 02:14:34 12/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2000 at 19:16:02, Mogens Larsen wrote: >It was different with Tiger, which is why you can't compare the two examples >that you give. The differences are: > >1) Discovering a bug before and after the testing has started. the version Rebel-Tiger 13 and Gambit-Tiger are on the market ! they are commercially available to anybody ! NO reason , also no programmer wishes can stop anybody from testing a program that won 2 championships (dutch + french). if somebody wants to stop testing a commercially available program, for the promise of an upgrade that is NOT on the market, it replaces a fact with a promise. this is manipulation ! people are not interested in the elo of a thing that is not THERE, they are interested in the elo of a thing that IS there. the wish of the programmer and the wish of the people can be 2 kind of shoes. i see no reason why programmers should be allowed stop testing a version that was sold in the shops, especially not when they have NO patch, but only a promise for it. the customer gets betrayed IMO. >2) Steen said that Gandalf was ready for testing while Christophe requested time >to fix a bug. brilliant. >Anyone with an ounce of commen sense can comprehend the chain of events that >makes it possible to differentiate between the two cases. when their is a program commercially available, all the ssdf have to do is to test the program. they don't have to wait for "opinions" or "wishes" of the programmers. the thing is there. anybody can buy it. so they should test it. they don't. ok. >>although it is weaker on autoplayer. >My impression is that Ed approved the way it was being tested. century3 is stronger than the elo it gets in sweden. in manually played games century 3 is very strong. the elo is not showing centuries strength.
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.