Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:42:24 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 12:21:11, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >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 ! No Vincent admitted that the ssdf did not ask him for hardware but only said that they have not enough hardware to test it immediately. > >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 ? :) It was not about hardware request but about the Fritz autoplayer that was not public at that time. Things were changed since that time. Uri
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.