Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:20:17 09/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
>... I bet all the upcoming reviews will complain about this: "We would have >liked to tell our readers about playing strength improvements, but we can't. >Why? Because Ed Schröder wants us to do spend 300 hours (time required for >about >40 tournament games) of manual testing and we simply cannot do this. In our >opinion, this shows a disrespect of our work as independent journalists >because >Ed Schröder wants us to rely solely on his own assesment about the expected >gains.". How about this? Sounds horrible, I agree. >>Not true Moritz. The criticism was on SSDF not Chessbase. >*My* criticism was mainly on ChessBase because they created the problem by not >making the autoplayer publically available. This will change soon and resolve >this problem for me. I read your complaints also as a criticism on ChessBase >(you always implied that they do test Fritz against Rebel and benefit from >this >while you cannot do likewise), and your statements have been instrumentalised >by >Ossi Weiner (www.computerchess.de) without any disagreement on your part. It's not fair to blame Chessbase for this. Never said that or implied that. Chessbase honored a request from SSDF for an auto232 compatible Fritz. Sofar so good. But SSDF should have insisted that the autoplayer should be public. In this spirit I have always argued. Concerning Ossi Weiner I feel not responsible to flame him here in public for the contents of his home page. You can read *my* opinion on *my* home page. >>Well I do hope that Rebel is more than auto232 alone :) >But Rebel is clearly *less* without auto232. Even MUCH less, to me. Yes I know! You are definitely in the TOP-5 of the 2-3% :) >>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 do not think that your demand to remove *all* Rebel games from the SSDF list >is justified. In fact, I believe it's very much unfair. Reasons: >(1) You did HUGE advertising with SSDF results when Rebel was the top honcho. >Will you also revoke these ads now??? You will look like a clear moral loser >when you cash in the benefits as long as you please and withdraw when you >don't >like the results. Oh yes, Bobby Fischer remains world champion until he >dies... I trust that people take my explanations as I write them. >(2) You do not honor the massive work the SSDF has put into testing Rebel over >the years. I feel that you simply have not the right to deny them to publish >the >results of their work when they are - as far as Rebel's games are concerned - >95% independent of potential effects of the issue you raised as your basic >complaint. Rebel didn't play against Fritz *that* often, and maybe other >programs had worse results against Fritz, even helping your relative position >in >the group of "follow-ups". That's the nice thing about doing as many different >matches as the SSDF does: The impact of one participant on the whole rating >pool >is small - only the final position affects all programs with worse scores by >"moving them one slot down the list". All I see is one big mess because of the new fashion "secret autoplayers". I consider "secret autoplayers" as UNFAIR COMPETITION. I do *not* want to be a part of that. Is that so difficult to understand? >(3) All other ratings are based (directly or implicitly) on games played >against >Rebel. It would be unfair for all other programs who scored better than >average >against Rebel to remove these games from the list. See above. >(4) If you cannot prove that the SSDF testing methods are biased - and you >don't >even claim this as far as I understand - you even could not legally have them >remove Rebel from their list. Did you read my home page? There are still 2 unanswered questions to SSDF over there. No answers from SSDF. >Not having Rebel listed at the SSDF is detrimental *to Ed Schröder* because: >(1) people looking for strong programs on the list will never consider Rebel, >because it doesn't even show up. Implication is that it is not relevant in >some >way with respect to the other programs listed there, and this clearly hurts >your >sales. I am aware that decisions have some side effects. >(2) if somebody tests Rebel e.g. without having the main opening book enabled >and gets bad results, in the past these results were suspicious because you >always had the SSDF list for guidance, showing Rebel among the very best >programs (this is also the case with the latest rating list where Rebel is >rated >only slightly behind the #1 program). Now this person will suddenly have a >much >higher credibility, because we will not have any rating for reference. >(3) part of the bad press ChessBase got will now cast echoes on Rebel and Ed >Schröder for repeating the same mistake of making no autoplayer publically >available. Even worse, now that ChessBase releases auto232 compatible >products, >this will make them look like really good guys and you will have to take all >the >heat. Don't expect my condolence when you start appearing on the >www.computerchess.de pages in the news section ... Will F6 be auto232 compatible then? If so you have a valid point. But then what will others do? Do you remember my try when I wrote all main participants (programmers) on SSDF? And what was their answer? Oh yes, a complete silence. >Hey, come on Ed, you really have nothing to hide ... Rebel's playing strength >is >beyond any doubt for me, don't spoil the fun by disabling the transmission of >Rebel's mating moves via auto232 ... I am hiding nothing. I am making a point. It's up to the SSDF to solve a serious problem. All I have seen sofar (from february till now) are half solutions. If you have pain in your teeth you can take aspirin. It will help for a while but it will backfire on you until you go to the dentist to remove the REAL trouble maker. What you (and others) unintentionally are trying to establish is to keep a flawed system by all means because "a flawed list" is better than "no list". Ever realized this? I would say until the teeth has been removed. - Ed - >Moritz
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.