Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:19:31 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 23:26:12, Mike S. wrote: >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 I could accept most of what you wrote. Of course restrictions for the customer is ridiculous because a chessplayer needs the modular system, as you defined it. But to make it short because I'm running out of time after a longer post to Uri, you twisted the debate again. And also left out important facts. As I said I agree with you. Private use must be allowed. Now, SSDF is private, so they can do what they want. This is your statement. This is what bothers me. First, they are so private that they had been used in official campaigns of ChessBase! They are private! But once ChessBase send autoplayers to Sweden and suddenly the rest of the progs have to be changed to be able being tested in the SSDF. Now my question, was it the SSDF who invited such things or was it ChessBase who dictated the whole procedure? And where SSDF protected the rights of the other non-ChessBase companies and programs?? If you would please consider these aspects for the sake of sound debating then I would have no more problems with your descriptions. All what I wrote about spin doctors is only possible when institutions are the corresponding world. If the SSDF wouldn't be a "private" foundation nobody would accept the results. But nowadays the influence of ChessBase must be object to debates. That is not yet a final verdict of course. So, private yes in a certain sense, but then also at the same time not-private if they are too dependent of ChessBase and its definitions. Or presents lie the autoplayer system. BTW in CSS forum I wasn't even allowed to ctiticise the participation of Bertil Eklund in the Barcelona event between JUNIOR and FRITZ. You know, where SHREDDER as the natural champ was excluded without play. So it was a clean ChessBase event. Is this a good example for the closeness between CSS and ChessBase? Rolf Tueschen
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.