Author: Steven Schwartz
Date: 06:01:49 04/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 1998 at 08:02:15, Andreas Stabel wrote:
>When I was going to vote today I was very disappointed to notice that
>the voting was set up to go against Fritz. I have not entered this
>debate earlier but have with interesst read the arguments for and
>against the correctness of the SSDF results.
>
>The question to be answered at the poll was:
>1) Fritz 5 had an unfair advantage
>2) The Fritz 5 rating is accurate with respect to the other programs
>3) Abstain
>
>You had to select one of the above.
>
>Now everybody can see that alternative 2 is not the opposite of
>alternative 1, so even if you think that Fritz 5 did NOT have an
>unfair advantage, you wouldn't agree with alternative 2. As almost
>everybody here has commented the SSDF results are NOT accurate, so
>most persons, myself included, would hesitate to select alternative 2
>even though we clearly disagree with alternative 1. The result of this
>voting is therefore absolutely worthless and the poll should be stopped.
>
>For the record, the only objective way to conduct a poll with predefined
>alternatives is to have all sensible alternatives listed or at least to
>have opposite views as alternatives.
>
>Still I very much appresiate the work done by the CCC and enjoy this
>site very much.
>
>Best regards
>Andreas Stabel
Hi Andreas,
We tussled with this question for weeks and knew that no
matter how it was worded, someone would be offended. We
really did try our best, and, in fact, when we wrote the
email informing everyone that the vote was beginning,
we indicated that we were not inplying or inferring that
SSDF and/or Chessbase did anything intentionally. This pole
will be over next Wednesday, and people are welcome to
debate whether the question was fairly worded or whether
the results have any meaning. Nobody here will be offended
in any way because we tried as best we could.
However, I have a suggestion. I would like to see a group
of members organized and responsible for the creation of fair
and interesting questions upon which everyone can debate and
vote. I am not quite sure how these people should be selected,
but I believe the group:
a) Should be five or fewer so as not to be bogged down
b) Should not have any commercial interests in computer chess
or any agendas that may hinder their objectivity.
c) Should have its discussions privately via email and
submit the questions and answers after they are finished
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.