Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 10:35:47 02/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 1998 at 12:28:00, Peter Schreiner wrote: > >Subject: New SSDF-List - especially for Thorsten >From: Karsten Bauermeister >E-mail: caratan@uni-muenster.de >Message Number: 15244 >Date: February 24, 1998 at 20:31:44 > >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. As far as I remember, Genius 4 was the first exception. SSDF tested the DOS version, commercially unavailable, in order to be able to autoplay. >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 >? No idea. What I can tell you is that the Powerbook is commercially available, it's not tuned for Fritz 5 and in my opinion Fritz would do better with a tuned book, like all programs. >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.... More info: the engine in the autoplaying version of F5 is identical to the one delivered with Junior 4.6. As for the autoplayer, I checked some of my own games, and manually I got the same results. >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...... I don't see your point here. >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. True. This is in my opinion the only arguable point. >5.) Fritz 5.0 is tested with endgame databases. Is this also the case >with other programs such as MChess 7.1 or Shredder ??? Again, no idea. They all should run optimized, of course. >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 ! Basically, that the version tested by SSDF and the commercial one are identical. Ideally, all programs should be tested on equal platforms and optimized. Still, the method used by SSDF is in my opinion valid enough to measure the relative strenth of programs in computer vs. computer form. It could be better, sure, like most things, including world championships where some programs run on 2x faster computers. I mean to say that even admitting some imperfections, SSDF results are basically valid. And their testing method is not different than before. Enrique >-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.