Author: Harald Faber
Date: 03:56:23 11/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 2003 at 20:46:18, Mike S. wrote: >On October 31, 2003 at 19:53:05, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On October 31, 2003 at 00:03:05, Mike S. wrote: >>>(...) >>>Would you call it FAIR when a major competitor of yours wouldn't be tested at >>>all?? >> >>When the competitor does not the least to be able to be tested, well, for me >>this looks as if the competitor does not want to be tested at all. > >It doesn't matter if the competitor (it's programmer and/or publisher) want's to >be tested or not. I'd even say it must not matter. Test are not only for them, >but for the fans too, even mainly for them who are or may be customers. You can >compare this with other tests of all kinds of products, cars, cameras, washing >machines. An independent testing organisation shouldn't be dependant :-)) from >decisions of people related to the product. I think this is obvious. So they >don't have to wait for any permissions or efforts to have a program tested. OK, permission agreed. But: Under which conditions does SSDF test? If you compare it with car tests, in this King-affair it would mean that the original King-car has a motor but or testing in Monza there are some wheels missing. Now to be able to test, you take the motor and place it in another body WITH wheels so that tests are possible. All others designed and developped their bodies themselves. No advantage for the King-car/motor?! >Also, the qualitiy of the SSDF ratings would be in question when important >engines are missing. No. It is just a list with some programs missing. It does not question the whole list. And BTW it is not the SSDF's fault when engines are missing because they *cannot* be tested. >Some years ago there was a similar situation, and it was >just courtesy of the SSDF not to test some important programs because the >publisher said he didn't want it, but the users certainly didn't appreciate the >decision. This is not correct. Ed has permitted, but said that there are problems with auto232 so he adviced to test manually. Otherwise the rating would not be accurate. >mfg. >Michael Scheidl
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.