Author: Andreas Mader
Date: 10:15:40 02/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
Peter, this is an excellent posting IMO! You brought it to the point! I have to add a little detail: Nimzo98 has a bug in the autoplayer function (sometimes it plays only one game with black). Chrilly corrected it and I asked him if we should send the SSDF a Nimzo version without this bug. He told me that the SSDF would refuse to accept a new version because they always want to test commercial versions. Now I ask myself: Has the SSDF changed the rules especially for Fritz5??? Andreas >Thorsten believes something, you don`t believe something ....? Again : >for me it`s a little >bit suspect, that you `re claiming this, after the new list is >published. >People like Moritz claimed this for a long time, this has for me more >credibility. > >To make it clear : I`m surprised about the performance of Fritz 5, but >it`s not a >great problem for me. You `re a well known expert, for example cowriter >in CSS. Didn`t >you recognize the real basic problem ? Let `s take a look to some facts >: > >The published list of the SSDF is a trusted source of information for >many years. The basic >principle of the SSDF was, that chess programs and computers were tested >ONLY in EXACTLY THE >SAME FORM, as they were AVAILABLE in the public. This basic principle is >the argument, which made >the SSDF ratings VALUABLE for all interested people. One additional >aspect is the fact, that the >SSDF is non-commercial. Okay until now ? > >Now, in my knowledge for the first time, the SSDF allowed a producer of >chess software, to participate >with a SPECIAL hardware/software configuration, which is in difference >to MChess, Rebel,Hiarcs, Genius etc. >NOT COMMERCIALLY available !! So for me it`s absolutly uninteresting, >what you or anybody else believe. I >see there some danger, that in the future the SSDF rating list will >become WORTHLESS , unless >they will return to their basic principles. > >Looking to the SSDF-Ratinglist from the 22.02.98 I want to discuss the >following points with my friends >here in CCC : > >1.)In difference to ALL other programs in the list Fritz 5 have been >tested with a special Powerbook, which is normal NOT delivered with >Fritz 5 ! Some guys told us here -- I think it was Moritz -- that the >book wasn`t tuned against other programs. But this is not my point : >this special book wasn`t supplied with F5, why did the SSDF accept this >? > >2.) Fritz 5 wasn`t tested with the standard auto232 interface. It only >works with a SPECIAL hard/software >combination supplied by the producer. We don`t know, what `s possible >with this special setup. But fact is :in difference to MChess, Rebel, >Hiarcs, Genius etc. nobody of us has the possibility, to test and work >with this special combination. Why ? Because it wasn`t delievered with >the normal Fritz 5 package.... > >3.) If you read the magazine CSS = ComputerSchach & Spiele then you `ll >find in earlier editions a lot of >results between Fritz 5 against some other programs like Rebel, Genius >or MChess. So in consequence this >autoplayer was available for ChessBase since summer. The SSDF received >this special autoplayer some months later. Perhaps you can agree, that >this procedure makes me a little bit sceptical...... > >4.) The SSDF - Version of Fritz 5 requires 64 MB RAM size for minimum. >This request is absolutly unusual and a privilege, which no other has >demanded. Perhaps we see in the future the programm "kalashinkov X.Y.", >which requires a minimum of Pentium II 400 MHz, 256 MB RAm ....etc. > >5.) Fritz 5.0 is tested with endgame databases. Is this also the case >with other programs such as MChess 7.1 or Shredder ??? > >These are the facts for my doubts. To make it very clear again : I have >NOTHING against Fritz 5 or against the work of the SSDF. If somebody >suspect, that here is a campaign against one these two parties, then >this impression is wrong ! But I see only one way to stop all negative >rumors : > >The SSDF shouldn`t allow these special conditions and continue the >testwork with their well known basic principles --> testing only >programs in a commercially available form, to which every computer chess >fan in the world has access. > >If not, then we `ll have two versions of programs in the future : > >1.) one for the public >2.) one for the SSDF > >In my view not a very good development. > >Let me know what you think ! > >-Peter
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.