Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:21:52 05/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2003 at 17:48:55, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On May 29, 2003 at 16:53:22, Bertil Eklund wrote: > >>As you know if Johann really are interested (we are and has always loved the >>engine) he could suggest the propher methods books and so on and the program >>should be tested a priori. > >maybe this has a history. > > >>The same goes for Rebel, when Ed has done his decision on what version he want >>us to test, the program or version can be included as far as possible. > >aha. >ok - wait and see. >in the meantime : test boring chessbase engines :-)) > > > >>Of course you know all this but it is funnier to throw mud on someone than >>suggest a reasonable solution for the abovementioned strong programs. > >both programs HAVE a reasonable solution. >there is NO excuse not to test them. They are strong. >and they don't crash. You do not accept the reason but there is a reason not to test them. The programmers. If they test chessmaster people will complain that they did not test personality X. They wait for the programmers to give them clear instructions about testing. Ed also can ask them to test if he wants them to do it. I think that it is a good thing that the ssdf care about the question if the programmers want them to test. You can expect in this way usually to test the best program because you can expect the programmers of the best program to ask the ssdf to test it. Uri
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.