Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 06:30:49 02/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2001 at 08:09:53, Aaron Tay wrote: >On February 16, 2001 at 09:31:12, Hans Christian Lykke wrote: > >>On February 16, 2001 at 00:34:16, Aaron Tay wrote: >>>2) Given all the complains about the uneven quality of Rating lists, what >>>factors would you look for in deciding if a rating list is a quliaty one? >>> >>>Eg >>> >>>* Number of games >>>* testing procedures [handling of bugs in book learning etc] >>>* Quality of testers [Would fewer quality testers be better than lots?] >>>* Transparancy [availability of games?, policy statements,audits? ] >>>* Perceived indepedence >>>* Hardware used >>> >>> >>>any more? And how do the various rating lists either by organisations [SSDF], >>>e-zines [e-bit, selective search] or single persons [eg Frank Quisinsky's list] compare acording to the citerias? > >>>It seems to me that SSDF seems to be the mostly superior in most areas, altough,they need to work on the perceived indepedence part.. > >>I think that SSDF can not be more independent than we are. >>Complete independent. >> >>Venlig hilsen >>Hans Christian Lykke (SSDF) > >That's worthless if people [some anyway] don't PERCEIVE that you are >independent. There are always 4 or 5 people that will question the independence of the SSDF no matter what, and there is nothing the SSDF can do about it. Given the irrationality of the criticism that reappears now and then, I wouldn't worry at all about this issue. Enrique
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.