Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 03:04:51 05/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 1998 at 03:05:42, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Dirk Frickenschmidt on May 04, 1998 at 18:37:52: > >>In Reply to: Re: SSDF rating list soon history? posted by Enrique Irazoqui >>on May 04, 1998 at 11:22:28: > >>On May 04, 1998 at 11:22:28, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>Thanks Enrique, this is plain facts without too much emotions! > >>I completely agree with you. >>Just because I doubt anything will change without new ideas, I want to >>add one. >>The idea just came to my mind, and I have not yet have long thoughts >>about it, so look at it 'cum grano salis': > >>How about >>a) all programmers requiring standard hardware for their programs as you >>proposed below (now perhaps still 200MMX with 64Mb, in future perhaps >>PII-300 or something; whatever: common for all) > >>b) all programmers providing an autoplayer which will have a kind of >>time stamp in it for normal users, thus only allowing autoplay after >>let's say a two months period after installing. > >>Only exeption: SSDF-version. >>Thus the SSDF testers could have their autoplay testgames for a certain >>period in which *no* company could use the autoplayer for outbooking >>tests. > >>After finally having the common version work plus testing time (so after >>about half a year) outbooking procedures would not be of much use any >>longer, because soon after (about once a year) a new version of the >>program would appear, with new (at first not common) autoplayer. > >>This might save enough time to avoid extreme forms of outbooking and >>still aloow us coomon folks to autoplay after two months: having fun and >>proving if the rating was ok all in all. > >>This is just *one* *possible* example of new ideas. So nobody should be >>angry telling me why *this* one might not work or not be useful, better >>just make more proposals leading away from the present situation which >>is a dead end... > >>Kind regards from Dirk > > >I disagree, an unworkable situation I fear. > >Here is my proposal.... > >I can very well live with all the book tuning that is done. It's >not so bad in the moment since opening books become wider and wider. >Furthermore this book tuning against each other improves the quality of >opening books so it serves a certain positive goal too, better books. >Last, it would be a continuation of the fashion that is going on for >more than 10 years, SSDF competitors competing on opening books too. >Bottom line, nothing new under the sun. > >But if we compete it should be on a equal basis. If the autoplayers of >Genius, Hiarcs, Rebel, Mchess, Shredder, Nimzo etc. are in the kitchen >of Hamburg the Fritz autoplayer should be in the kitchen of Genius, >Hiarcs, Rebel, Mchess, Shredder too. > >This is a public request to all my colleagues not to remove auto232 >from their programs in their next releases and to include auto232 in >their final version. > >This is also a public request to SSDF to coordinate this proposal >between all the programmers or companies involved at least if you >guys find this proposal worthy enough to give it a try. > >Bottom line (as I see it), if ALL release auto232 in their next >version the problem would be solved no? So it seems. And why is that I always expected you would make this proposal? :)) Enrique >- Ed Schroder - > >CC: Thoralf Karlsson > Ossi Weiner > Matthias Wüllenweber
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.