Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 02:53:53 12/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2000 at 05:14:34, Thorsten Czub wrote: >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. That may be, since the weaknesses of the current program is concealed from the public when there's no direct comparison with other programs. I understand and partially agree with your point of view in that regard. However, if the same courtesy is applied to all the software tested then there shouldn't be a problem. Remember that the Gandalf test was stopped when the learning bug was discovered. One thing bothers me about the Tiger controversy though. Why should the programmer be allowed to implement additional knowledge unrelated to the bug? In my mind there should have been a quick learning fix (like Gandalf) and the testing could have started. Everyone can claim to be working on something. That's were I share your concern. >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. You know as well as I do about the Shredder incident. It's in the best interest of the consumer if the relationship between SSDF and authors are as good as possible. It's a question of finding the right balance. So far the balance has been okay. >century3 is stronger than the elo it gets in sweden. Maybe. >in manually played games century 3 is very strong. Maybe. >the elo is not showing centuries strength. You can't have it both ways. Either it's tested or it isn't. If you don't accept the methods used by SSDF that's fair enough, but criticising no matter what they do isn't. Mogens.
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.