Author: Mike S.
Date: 20:26:12 08/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 19:12:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >(...) At times I had wished that you then came forward and defended me that I >had not at all surpassed the limits of a sound discussion. But then you kept >silent. But this is the past. I'm sorry if I have missed doing so when I should have. >(...) Good. Now let me show you where you are acting as a spin doctor, ok? We have >still Jereon's idea that ChessBase could define that only FRITZ engines were >allowed to use the FRITZ ctg. A spin doctor however is able to change the >original debate. He doesn't even respond to a former proposal. I immediatly disliked the idea and explained why: "That type of "technical" book/engine restriction you suggest, would mean users wouldn't have free choice of book/engine combinations anymore. Which is one of the *main advantages* of that modular concept in professional GUIs," etc. - Actually that is so obvious that no company will ever consider doing that, anyway. My concern is, rankings like SSDF may rank higher in the personal priorities list of some professional (book-) or engine authors than *the user*. At least if it's a business - maybe also recommendable for the amateur with that perspective - the user and his demands should be on top of the list. The longer I think about it the more absurd it sounds: Throw away a major usability (and fun-) feature just to prevent that other programs might score a few more points on a ranking list when there was a bad decision on which book to use... >(...) Since the Swedes are "anmateurs" (the association even goes to the >usually neutral Swedes!) how could we even dare to criticise them!! Actually I was critizising them constantly for various details, so often that I even feared lately it might spoil their testing fun, if they read it on occasion. >(...) The correct address following Mike is the SSDF itself!! - Q.E.D. (That >is what makes the quality of a good spin >doctor. We have a completely twisted situation. Someone put a question in >direction of Chessbase, now suddenly ChessBase is no longer focussed.) Of course is SSDF the correct address in SSDF matters. It is their decision what and how they test. And they prove independance a lot, by *not* listening to suggestions and critizism from the community. For example, the amateur which was suggested most often to be tested next, was *Yace*. Many people wrote that. (I don't complain that Gromit is tested, it's a top amateur too and interesting, but I wonder if they would have chosen it if it would have been the major suggestion...) >(...) If a spin doctor does this twisting repeatedly in favor of a certain party, then >I think that he does it intentiously. Here for ChessBase. I have no intention of turning the discussion away from ChessBase, but they are not to blame for SSDF decisions when to use which book or not. I don't think this idea is the least threat for ChessBase btw., because they would surely say "we will never turn back time and sacrifice the modular GUI/engine/book concept (?!)" I assume. 99,99% of the customers would agree and think that is only natural anyway. >(...) For instance it would be totally ineffective if the spin doctor >himself would simply argue pro ChessBase and trying to prove that ChessBase >must not intervene at all. Note that the restriction idea would apply to all companies/GUIs which have that concept, in theory. At the moment I think this would be all... I don't know all the GUIs, but AFAIK all have it (unrestricted book/engine combination, except a number of engine-specific freeware books). In practise it would not apply to them, because SSDF tests mainly in the Fritz GUI. (Maybe the books used each, should be mentioned directly in the SSDF list, like CPU speed and hash size.) >Say you are not successful with your twist and the question of Jereon must be >answered I am sure ChessBase will qickly take back the allowance for using the >FRITZ ctg. But before _that_ is necessary the debate will be censored. I'm not even sure if they were asked for such an allowance. I'd be surprised if ChessBase would want to involve in that discussion or testing descision. What I don't want are technical or license restrictions (publishing games...), because they are extremely anti-user friendly so to speak. Anybody is running various engines with various books, that's normal use including publishing of tournaments, ratings lists... Do special rules apply to SSDF just because it's *bigger*? I'd say they can do as they wish like anybody else. Sometimes I think I would have done it differently, but at the same time I think they can't be forced doing or not doing something in relation to the word "official". There is no SSDF law, they are just doing at a larger scale, what many users with a computer and a homepage do, too. Regards, M.Scheidl
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.