Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 00:25:50 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 03:10:22, Sandro Necchi wrote: >They do their best to give reliable data without favoring any program and >checking the games before recording the score. >This is how they always did. this is what we are discussing Sandro, if they give their best. this is part of the critics for years now. because people have different kind of standards concerning this "they do their best". IMO it would be within a normal range of "doing the best" to make sure that a company is not getting special advantages due to a special autoplayer system. also IMO it is within the normal range of "doing the best" to make sure double-games are not counted again and again, therefore you need to collect the data and make them public so that all testers can see when they play double games. We have seen this list beeing presented like a holy grail for many years. and in the years of the dedicated chess computers the double-game topic was IMO very relevant due to the fact that the books were small and the variety of openings and games was very limited. Of course the ssdf guys do a good job, but we are having different point of views concerning: "doing the best". >I not always agreed with their way to make the testing, but I can personally >assure everybody that what they did and do is to get the best reliable data they >can based on their experience. This is the point of discussion. If you believe that what they did is good enough for you, i have to disagree, it is not good enough for me. And it never was. Therefore i always critisized them when i felt that they are not doing the best (seen from my point of view). >Who knows me knows that I do understand and accept, of course, that other people >may have different opinions or ideas, but we must be honest and admit the huge >and important work they have been and are doing for all chess programs funs. Of course they do a good job. But the list has failures, and those problems are in the SETTING of the system. >So, I believe that everybody should thanks them and not criticize them. nonsense. if their is something to criticize, one has to speak it out, no matter if you like them or not. critics is something that has nothing to do with friendship. critics is there to increase the quality of methods and the quality of events. so if there is a problem, and there were many, you have to speak them out of course.
This page took 0.01 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.