Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 05:15:36 03/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
>SSDF should not allow such tricks, which is of course hard when you get paid for >that... i do not know if they get paid. IMO not. But still they could try to be more objective and more precise , to guaranty that the testing is accurate. If they cannot guaranty accurate testing, they should not try to convince the people that they DO accurate testing. You mentioned all the bugs in the chessbase GUIs and autoplayer that weakenes non chess base products. this is true. if they would have STOPPED to play with this autoplayer in the years it was established (AND WE COMPLAINED LOUDLY THAT THIS NEW AUTOPLAYER WAS ALLOWED) we would not have those problems today. but they accepted it. this made anything very very complicate. the company having the monopol now dictates how it continues with giving strange GUI's and strange "bugs" that cause the opponent to lose (e.g. no learning, not all resources, only 1 MB hash etc etc.). They were resistant to any kind of critic. this was IMO a mistake. Now they do not control the actions anymore, but chessbase controls the action. So the list is not objective anymore, it is an instrument used/misused for chessbase. In the same way you could ask a tabacco company about the danger to smoke a cigarette and get cancer. The tabacco company will of course say: no it is not dangerous. >Right now we cannot verify what happens in the games. Only 1 tester is >transparant. yes . and we can happy about this. in those years before, in the dedicated chess computer years, there were no games and no verification if a game is played once, twice or thrice again :-))
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.