Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 12:49:40 09/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>>I do have some qustions to Ed Schroeder: >>>Is Rebel 10 stil compatoble to the Chess 232? >>No. >OK, why don't we have a poll here on CCC about how many people are affected by >this decision? My Chess232 board is not there to gather dust on my desk, so I >clearly don't like this decision. The general interest in auto232 in low, say 2-3%. Not here in CCC of course, here it is hot. Most of Rebel customers never heard of auto322. But I admit I am punishing my very best and loyal customers. I guess I have to live with that. >Let's use this forum to take a stand and vote in cyberspace instead with our >purse - less painful for Ed if his decision turns out to be controversial and >potentially detrimental to his Rebel sales. >>>Does Rebel 10 still support the Autoplayer 232? >>No. >Wow, that's really bad news! After ChessBase will have again autoplayer >compatibility with their new products, Ed choses to make the same MISTAKE like >ChessBase did with Fritz 5 (for which he heavily criticized them!). Not true Moritz. The criticism was on SSDF not Chessbase. >One of the reasons Rebel was kind of acceptable as a DOS program was the fact >that it at least supported the autoplayer. Now that this will be deliberately >removed, there's one excuse less for buying a non-Windows dinosaur. >Rebel clearly addresses expert players and computer chess enthusiasts. While >the >former feel sorry for the lack of chess board support, the latter audience >depends to a high degree on the ability to set up autoplayer machines for >testing purposes. If testing becomes impossible this way, nobody will be able >to >verify the (impressive, in my opinion) strength of Rebel vs. other programs. >The one Anand match will not be good enough to claim significant playing >strength improvements (after all, Rebel 9 might have scored as well as >Rebel 10 >did). Only independent testing (read: also auto232 games to produce a >significant number of games) qualifies as an indicator of competitive >improvements. Do I have to remind everybody on the fatal debate that emerged >after Fritz 5 was released without autoplayer and of the silly claims that it >really didn't play well? The true motivation of these claims would have been >even clearer if everybody (!) would have been able to just let Fritz fight it >out for itself on John Doe's machines at home vs. other programs. This >verification was not possible and the smear campaign at least irritated some >people to a degree that they were not sure if playing strength wasn't a reason >*NOT* to buy Fritz (there were several posts about this on r.g.c.c.). Oh yes, >and Fritz also defeated Grandmasters en masse at faster time controls, this >didn't stop the bad-mouthing about its lacking chess skills. >Already I see it coming: People will speculate about the reasons why Rebel >isn't >available for auto232 matches with other programs any longer. Combined with >the >fact that it doesn't participate in world micro championships, it almost looks >like if it wasn't strong enough to compete. People can say what they want. For the reason see below. >>From my experience with an auto232 compatible beta version, I can assure you >that REBEL 10 plays well enough to best even the strongest programs around! >But >you want it to compete on your PC, right? Without autoplayer support, this is >not feasible, sorry. >Remember, customers do have a choice: >Autoplayer support: Genius, Hiarcs, Fritz+Junior+Nimzo engines, Shredder, >M-Chess, Crafty (in the works), Rebel 9 (!), you-name-it ... >No auto232 support: Rebel 10 >Where's the upgrade incentive if Rebel 10 is to be still a DOS program, but >without a much cherished and often used feature of all previous releases? Well I do hope that Rebel is more than auto232 alone :) >What's the economical reasoning behind investing extra work to remove a killer >sales feature for loyal customers? Just to take revenge on the SSDF sounds >silly... Probably they will not test Rebel without autoplayer, but if they do >nothing will be accomplished by this action but to annoy everybody involved. No revenge, that is silly. >I feel very sad because I was already looking forward to do testing with Rebel >10 on the autoplayer vs. assorted opponents. >No new features in Rebel 10 will be good enough to make up for this >diminishment >of the joy I take in testing computer programs. - As far as I am concerned, I >will never ever do manual testing against other programs on tournament level >(where Rebel excels!), if only for the reason that I don't have that much time >to throw away. >Does anybody actually like the political decision to remove auto232 support? >Please speak up, maybe we can stop this nonsense! (sorry for the strong words, >but I simply don't get it). Ok, I will explain. 5-6 weeks ago I sent email to SSDF. Two points: - please remove Rebel results from next SSDF list; - please do not include Rebel10 on SSDF list; The email explained in detail all my motivations. I still have no answer. Instead of that SSDF released a new list with Rebel. I considered such an attitude towards me as the worst possible scenario one can think of. At least I expected a 'yes' , 'no' or whatever. So the only guarantee I have Rebel10 not being on SSDF is to remove auto232 from Rebel10. It's a decision for one release. I simply wait and see how others will deal with the raised "hidden auto-player" problem and then make up my mind again. - Ed - Here is the email to SSDF dated August 2, 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Mr. Karlsson, This is an OFFICIAL request to remove all REBEL entries from the next SSDF list. Why? It's my opinion that through the years the SSDF list has become a kind of standard for measuring the playing strength of chess programs. SSDF has allowed (and even encouraged) to publish the list by third parties (magazines). Later, since many chess magazines published your (then excellent) rating list (which was a confirmation of your good work) it became attractive for publishers of chess programs to advertise with your list. This has emphasized the importance of your list even more. As far as I know the SSDF never has forbidden (not even has protested) that publishers have used the SSDF list in their advertisements. Perhaps you don't realize (excuse me when I am wrong) but your list has become a kind of "check-list" for people to look first before they decide to buy a chess program. Fact is you have never done anything against it and allowed it to happen. Not that you are obliged to do so but you seem to overlook one important point. The fact the SSDF list has become so important has created for the SSDF certain RESPONSIBILITIES. One of them is to ensure an environment of good and reliable testing. Since February 1998 this is not longer the case anymore despite all the efforts made by other producers, other people and myself to put the SSDF back on the right track. I don't think it is necessary to talk about the subject again as we have done that enough during the last months. For an overview of my criticism on the SSDF list see my home page. I am sure you are aware of the criticism over there. Fact is that since your latest rating list you have made a knee-fall for secret autoplayers (setting a precedent also). I consider secret autoplayers as unfair and I state that secret autoplayers highly undermine the goal of the SSDF list, a sorted list of chess programs concerning their playing strength. Feel free to disagree with me. Whatever your opinion is of the above for me as a producer it is UNATTRACTIVE anymore to participate on your list and what's even more important, the current lists since February 1998 are DAMAGING the good name of my brand-name REBEL. As a producer I can not let this happen as you certainly will understand. From February 1998 till now (August 1998) I have given you enough time to reconsider your goals and priorities however to no avail. Therefore I repeat my request, remove all REBEL entries from the next SSDF list. Please consider the fact that organizers of IMPORTANT events (ICCA etc.) ALWAYS ask producers to participate. They will not allow entries in their tournaments without the (written) consent of the producer (or programmer) because they might hurt the product (program) in question. In this respect I have FULL right to ask you to remove all REBEL entries from the SSDF list. I think it is self-understood I do not want you to test the upcoming Rebel10 program on the SSDF list. I hope you will not disappoint my personal trust in you because it was always a pleasure for me to talk with you during the years. Kind regards, - Ed Schroder - Author of REBEL
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.