Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:08:34 10/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 2003 at 00:33:11, Luis Smith wrote:
>On October 30, 2003 at 22:21:39, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On October 30, 2003 at 17:58:29, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On October 30, 2003 at 17:10:25, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 30, 2003 at 14:32:08, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't understand why ChessMaster is allowed to use a Kure book (general.ctg)
>>>>>in the SSDF testing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Last time this happened (with Gromit) it was specifically said by Alex Kure
>>>>>that it was _not_ allowed to use the Fritz books to test anything other
>>>>>than Fritz. So why is ChessMaster using it now? Did Kure give permission
>>>>>(which I seriously doubt)?
>>>>>
>>>>>IMHO using the ChessBase learner for ChessMaster is also very questionable.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>GCP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I agree to both of your points.
>>>>
>>>>If Kure does not allow one of its books to be used, it is unfair to let CM9000
>>>>use it.
>>>>
>>>>CM9000 is not a ChessBase product, so it is unfair to allow the engine to use
>>>>the ChessBase book learning system.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I'm extremely surprised that the
>>>>SSDF guys do something that is clearly against the spirit of their list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>CM9000 is not a chessbase product but I think that the ssdf should be allowed to
>>>test every combination of engine, book and learning.
>>>
>>>After all the interesting question is what is the best thing that people can buy
>>>and if people can buy chessmaster together with Fritz book and get something
>>>better than it is important to know it.
>>>
>>>SSDF have not enough time to test every combination and this is the reason that
>>>they should prefer the programmer choice in case that he suggests something(I
>>>guess that in this case Johan suggested nothing so they are free to test it in
>>>the way that they want to do it)
>>>
>>>I think that book makers should not be allowed to forbid people to test their
>>>book with another program.
>>>
>>>They earn enough from not allowing other people to use their book in world
>>>championship or from the fact that people know that the ssdf leader used their
>>>book.
>>>
>>>Chessbase also can earn money if people know that the programmer chose to test
>>>chessmaster under chessbase because it means that people may buy both chessbase
>>>interface and chessmaster.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>
>>
>>Come on, Uri...
>>
>>Maybe you hope that some day the same favor will be allowed for Movei?
>>
>>It's ridiculous. The spirit of the SSDF has always been to test the programs
>>"out of the box", unless the programmer himself suggests a change in the default
>>setup.
>>
>>Here it's not an "out of the box" program that is tested, because it cannot be
>>tested automatically.
>>
>>OK, I can understand that.
>>
>>But WHY would this program receive TWO UNFAIR ADVANTAGES?
>>
>>Why would the SSDF give an advantage when the author and the manufacturer of the
>>program in question have provided no help to solve the issues of the book and
>>the GUI???
>
>IIRC Two versions of Chesstiger 15 were tested in the SSDF. Would you call that
>an "unfair" advantage? Doubling the chance to top the list. You weren't
>calling SSDF on that one
Tiger 14 and Gambit Tiger 2 have been tested. They were two different chess
engine with vastly different playing styles and abilities.
>Also note that Shredder 7.04 wasn't "out of the box"
>It was a download patch, with perhaps different settings or bug fixes. Is that
>an "unfair advantage". I would be suprised if Stephan reccomended(sp?) those to
>Tony and SSDF.
It is not an unfair advantage.
The basic principle is that the SSDF tests what the customer can get when he
purchases the product.
As long as the updates are available for free to the customers, it is fine with
me if the SSDF installs the updates and test with them.
I see absolutely no problem here.
>Crafty, Gromit, and other engines were allowed to use general.ctg, you weren't
>calling SSDF on that one either.
That was already unfair.
>Besides rules and traditions change IMO this is a good thing. Most users of
>these engines usually don't use default settings, so it makes sense to test the
>popular ones.
I have no problem with this.
The SSDF asks the author what the best settings are, and they use these settings
instead of the out-of-the-box settings.
No problem. The normal customer could apply these settings without paying any
additional price, so that's perfectly fair.
The SSDF applies the patches that are made available for free to the customers.
That's fair and I see no problem.
But testing a mix of two different PRODUCTS is unfair and does not follow the
historical spirit of the SSDF.
It is especially scandalous when you know that this product mix comes from the
fact that the engine's author did not provide the necessary help to have his
product tested under fair conditions.
Christophe
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.