Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:57:29 06/08/98
Go up one level in this thread
And Ed what has happened with your proposal, who joins in? Chessbase? Weiner? Greetings, Vincent On June 07, 1998 at 17:22:58, Komputer Korner wrote: >On June 06, 1998 at 01:46:07, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>Posted by Jan Nyström on June 05, 1998 at 20:43:01: >> >>>Hi ! >>>In the CCC Opinion Poll about the ssdf rating list, what was the >>>result? was it 100 % against ssdf ? Some time when i read the e-mails in >>>ccc, it looks like ewerybody are against fritz and ssdf..... >>>but the only program i can read about in ccc is fritz...?? >> >>>Where are we now in the "ratinglist caos" ??? ask the people >>>who start the "my program is the no 1 !! no my program is 14,65 points >>>better.... no way my dosn't use the auto 232 this and that..... >>>bla... bla... bla....." (MABY SOME OVER REACTION BUT.... :-) ) >> >>>what do u Schröder, Lang, etc... think about the ssdf list ? >> >>>i want to keep the list !!!!!! >> >>Same here Jan. >> >>Two weeks ago I sent the below email to the main programmers or people >>in charge. Since Ossi Weiner in his wisdom decided to quote the whole >>email to 50-60 people I can better make it public as well. It was an >>unpleasant experience for me that I did not receive one single reply! >>Bottom Line, better forget automatic testing. We are going back to the >>stone age :( >> >>I didn't manage, perhaps you the customer can convince them after all >>I am just a competitor. It's my opinion, without AUTO232 no SSDF and >>CCL anymore. The latter is 100% true for CCL as I will quit CCL for >>sure as it makes no sense to me to test Rebel10,11,12... against old >>and out-dated versions. >> >>This doesn't mean *I* will remove auto232 from Rebel10. Rebel 10.0 >>will support auto232 as usual. I am not so afraid of all the book >>preparations as it is happening already since day one of SSDF. >> >>Here is the group-email... >> >>- Ed Schroder - >> >>------------------------------------------------ >>Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 16:33:12 +0200 (CEST) >>From: Ed Schroder >>Subject: AUTO232 and SSDF >>Cc: Marty Hirsch >> Stefan Meyer Kahlen >> RICHARD LANG >> Mark Uniacke >> Helmut Weigel >> Ossi Weiner >> Matth. Wuellenweber >> Eric Hallsworth >> Thoralf Karlsson >> Frederic Friedel >> >>Dear colleagues, >> >>For the next version of Rebel I will (still) release the program >>including the possibility of auto232. I hope all of you will do >>the same. >> >>It's my opinion that removing auto232 from our programs will result >>in a dying or uninteresting SSDF list. The same applies for my own >>started CCL, I assume you heard of it. >> >>It's also my opinion that WE need a list because our customers WANT >>a list. If there is no list I fear the topic computer chess will >>slowly die. >> >>Bottom line, we have a common interest to keep computer chess alive >>and healthy and compete with each other. Too many good things has >>disappeared (or are disappearing), Aegon, Harvard Cup, will there >>be a WCM this year? I doubt it. This tells people (our customers) >>that computer chess is dying and they might lose interest with the >>predictable result, lower sales. >> >>So my proposal is let's have a gentleman agreement, we ALL release >>our next version with auto232. The gentleman agreement is *ONLY* >>valid if *ALL* have promised by responding on this email with YES, >>see below. >> >>If one (of the list below) doesn't want or does not reply I consider >>my try as fruitless and there will be no gentleman agreement and >>everybody simply does what he thinks is best. >> >>But I do hope you all will see the importance of the subject as we >>have a common interest here to cooperate. My vote is a clear YES. >> >>Now I can understand the problem you might have with the Fritz5 >>testing on SSDF. Perhaps you have heard of my official and also >>public complaints and even that I felt forced to withdrawn from >>SSDF completely. >> >>Also here I like to make a proposal, why don't you Thoralf promise >>us (the programmers) for the future (a) not to accept auto players >>that are not public and (b) not to accept special hardware demands >>again? I am sure that it would help to convince us to say YES to >>the gentleman agreement. In that case I would be happy to participate >>on your list again. >> >>Below you can sign and then return the email to me or in this group. >> >> I agree to the stipulations of this email, >> >> Thoralf Karlsson ... >> Richard Lang ... >> Stefan Meyer-Kahlen ... >> Marty Hirsch ... >> Frans Morsch ... >> Mark Uniacke ... >> Chrilly Donninger ... >> Ed Schroder YES >> >>In order to keep this going I want to suggest a deadline of June 1, >>1998. Before this date I would like you to react to make this >>gentleman agreement valid. >> >>Kind regards, >> >>Ed Schroder >> >>PS, excluded from the CC-list are Frans and Chrilly as they don't >>want to receive group email. I trust that Fred and Ossi will make >>sure they get the message. Also to Eric my request is to ensure >>that Marc gets the message. > >I would like to add that without automatic testing, the progress of >computer chess slows. Testing a new idea will be horrendous once the old >programs with autotest drivers become too old to test against. This is true, but just think of what Chessbase did. Send in a special version, and the old version to play it takes many many hundreds of hours. So where they can develop their program autoplaying you at x computers without taking them time, same time, you are busy playing computer versus computer to see how well your prog is doing. Also you can cook against other programs where cooking for your program takes say 4000 hours manual (for 1000 test games, which otherwise gets done in 2 weeks automatically). >-- >Komputer Korner Vincent
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.