Author: Mark Young
Date: 20:14:30 04/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 1998 at 08:35:03, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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 > >I also think the options could have been formulated better. Still, >option 2 is good enough for people like me that think Fritz 5 deserves >to be on top of the SSDF list because it performed well in their matches >and there is nothing fishy about them, in spite of all the campaigns >that tried to claim otherwise without any proof whatsoever. > >Enrique ------------------------- what he said.
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.