Author: Joe McCarron
Date: 17:40:15 04/17/98
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 I don't mean to pretend to speak for anyone but myself but.... I think Option 2 means is that the SSDF results are *as accurate as any* of the other ssdf results. That is its not the accuracy of the SSDF in general that is in question. Whats funny for me is I was thinking that it might be unfair in favor of chess base because one could believe one and not necessarily reject 2. That is they could say it is unfair that a competitor be able ot keep parts of their auto player secret from the rest (and therefore accept the first proposition) but also believe that the secret autoplayer didn't effect the outcome (and therefore accept 2) That happens to be my belief about this whole deal. I don't think its fair for chessbase to say we not going to let you know what sort of auto player (or whatever) we used and then turn around say the other competitors have the burrden of showing it created an unfair result. How can you prove it unfairly benefits fritz when they won't release it?? If they aren't going to turn over the information(like all the other participants save a few exceptional cases which I will address below) then they should have the burden of proving that it does not have any effect on their program. They have just given conclusory statements that it doesn't and I don't think they met their burden. As far as this happenning with an edition of genius in the past...I don't think that is relevant. Who cares if this is making bigger stir because fritz is number 1? That seems perfectly normal. Just because Genius did this in the past and no one cared doesn't make it correct. BTW I Know very little about computers (or of chess for that matter) but I enjoy reading this (and I used to enjoy reading rgcc but that really went over the deep end) in part because of these controversies.
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.