Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 11:57:33 09/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 1998 at 15:49:40, Ed Schröder wrote: >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. Unbelievable ! This is an organisation ?!?! Looks more like a group of friends going into a pub and coming back very drunken... :-) >Instead of that SSDF released a new list with Rebel. really ?! How can they not follow the wish of the author ! YOU have the copyrights. They cannot overrule YOUR decision. Because you are the author. >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. Right. I do completely agree. This is another example of their misbehaviour that fits perfectly well into my "prejudices" or better: experiences. >So the only guarantee I have Rebel10 not being on SSDF is to remove >auto232 from Rebel10. right decision. I congratulate you for having the backbone to do so. >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. This is right. I really don't understand how the people here mix up that YOU are the person who reacts on decisions that were caused by ssdf/chessBase. How can anybody blame YOU for reacting on a mean attack/behaviour by ssdf/chessBase >- Ed - people seem to be crazy. They forget about moral. >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). This is said in the right tone and it is fact. They have lost their control... > 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. Brilliant ! I really appreciate your bahaviour ed. >Therefore I repeat my request, remove all REBEL entries from the next >SSDF list. Good ! >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 I really don't understand that somebody cannot answer such an email. They are crazy...
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.