Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 09:21:11 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 06:08:31, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On March 05, 2004 at 19:44:56, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On March 05, 2004 at 18:23:44, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On March 05, 2004 at 15:51:47, Thoralf Karlsson wrote: >>> >>>>On March 05, 2004 at 03:54:57, Afzal Siddique wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hello All, >>>>> >>>>>http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=105063596 >>>>> >>>>>Afzal >>>> >> >>>>I have never asked Vincent Diepeveen for money in order to test his program. >> >>>That is correct. You told me that you were lacking hardware that much that >>>without another machine or 2 you would not be able to garantuee me that diep >>>would be soon at the list. >> >>So from that statement (we don't have enough PC's to test Diep) you concluded >>Thoralf was asking you to send him 2 PC's? >> >>Ed > > >Dear Ed, > >please stop playing these games and let me answer for VD. Yes, of course, a >young programmer MUST understand the words of TK this way! Period. > >VD wanted to reach the goal that his program was tested as soon as possible. >Understandable wish. Now the responsible man from SSDF says that he could only >do this if he had more resources - BUT of course he hasn't yet. OF COURSE this >does NOT say word for word that Vincent should send hardware as soon as >possible. But the implication is absolutely clear. Taken that VD WOULD have done >this, the SSDF certainly wouldn't have rejected the kind present. > >But all this is only part of the overall general problem!!! > >And we should thank VD that he has published this here in CCC. The other aspect >of the problem is that a company like ChessBase has more resources than just a >young programmer. THEY make an invoice with an autoplayer and whoopieee, the >SSDF is accepting it. Later it was found out that this autoplayer gave FRITZ an >edge. At that moment also Ed Schröder began to jump up and down. A kind of war >began. > >So here we come to the final aspect of this problem. Speaking in terms of >history. Overall, these parts of the "SSDF problem" could be defined as follows: > > *** the SSDF is held by amateurs, by certainly sympathetic hobby freaks > > *** due to a lack of resources SSDF had to test by hand in the early days > > *** due to that same aspect SSDF became open for manipulative tools > > *** in consequence gifts of hardware alone _could_ influence the results > >This is all, what Vincent is saying and this is correct. If the SSDF were really >independent, they would test completely without contacts with the programmers. >They would buy the progs in shops and they would test them. They would test in >the spirit of the potential clients, the end-users. The whole communicating with >the programmers and their companies makes the SSDF object of almost invisible >manipulations. > >Also herefore Vincent gave perfect examples. The invoice of special "books" and >"learning files" is obviously a tool to manipulate the results of the tests >because the programmers want to react themselves on the reactions of the other >collegues with newer program versions on _their_ progs. Obviously this has no >longer something to do with independent and reliable testing standards. > >To make this absolutely clear: a test, once begun, does NOT allow a tester to >later make all kind of replacements or manipulative novelties because that >simply and perfectly destroys the validity of the tests! (Just to tell the truth >to many testers here around: you should NOT update your progs in a test >"tournament" because that makes the whole tournament invalid. <snip> Hi Rolf, Very nicely put. I would like to point out another thing - Vincent mentioned that he was asked for Hardware : some 6 years or so back - not yesterday or last year ! Ed also keeps mentioning - "not anymore" - does this mean that there may/defintely(!?) have been problems earlier on in the past ? Could this h/w request also be a thing of that same past period ? :) As any businessman will expect a return of investments , so would any hypothetical company say chessbaseX expect return of investments in case they did donate machines to SSDF (If the implict request for machine was made - then it might have been made to others too and some of whom would have obliged). This need not be in terms of manipulating games - a strict no no - but could be the strategic entry of a new engine in the list , a new killer book , etc , etc ,etc Mridul > > >Rolf
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.