Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:56:07 03/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 08:43:15, Ed Schröder 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. > >No, it is just an explanation why a program can't be tested. Anything other than >that is paranoia. I must strongly object because this is a dirty insult against VD. I repeat it: if a tester answers this way to a young programmer, the latter must understand that if he could supply them with hardware THEN they would test his program. No Wch title can change this meaning, Ed, I'm so sorry. > > >>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. > >No, it is paranoia. The same dirty insult again. Are you a psychiatrist? How can you say that? > > >>Taken that VD WOULD have done >>this, the SSDF certainly wouldn't have rejected the kind present. > >I once made a careful allusion to test them, they past the test successful. Please more details for this experiment. > > > >>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 > >What invoice are you talking about, I asssume you meant to express something >else. I busted the English. What I meant with invoice is simply something someone SENT in to the SSDF. I didn't know the correct meaning of invoice. > > > > >>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. > >The "Fritz-5 secret autoplayer" issue is a separate subject, there is no >relationship with the current topic -> sending hardware to Sweden. Objection! Of course it's in connection. True testers wouldn't and shouldn't stay in contact with the business world. Period. That means IF they don't have strict rules for their testing procedures which they don't have. > > > >>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 > >There are no manipulative tools, you forget that the autoplayers are accepted by >the programmers who participate, the SSDF can't function function without the >programmers approval. The "Fritz-5 secret autoplayer" issue was such an example. It is interesting how you change your opinion. You were among those who were certain that something was not kosher with that tool. VD said nothing else. But because you changed your opinion, Vincent must be parano???? Strange logic! > > > >> *** in consequence gifts of hardware alone _could_ influence the results > >No. > >There have been irregularities in the past, today everything is okay. Except that the validity isn't there! Period. > > >>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. > >And then you will find programmers complaining in public. They will publicly >criticize the SSDF for not using the optimal settings. And what could that change? They could jump up and down and the SSDF should continue as usual --- IF they were real testers. But they don't. > > >>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. > > >Nonsense, name one of such a manipulation that would cause a program to perform >better. Ed, what's going on with you? The time alone when somethig is being sent IS of importance for the results! You know that! > > >>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. > >The word "invoice" again, what do mean by that? > >The general agreed rule is that the version in test is publicly available to the >user. This means the engine, the interface, the books, the learning files. > > > >>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! > >Meaning a programmer can't replace a bugged engine? NOT during a certain match. This is a crucial and trivial standard in testings. Period. > > >>(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. For that same >>reason the disqualifying of LIST in Graz three rounds before the end faked the >>whole results.) >> >>[ I must beg the reader in a general question. Please do not read something into >>this message, just because I may have used the improper wordings. Since I am a >>foreign English speaker, I have no sense for the objective and concrete meaning >>of certain words. Please take my words in its meant context of the whole >>message. To make this clear, I do NOT bash the SSDF and its amateur testers. >>Nobody does that if he wants to be taken for serious. And if I accept their >>amateur status in the beginning of this message, then it is impossible that my >>critic later could be taken as insulting abuse. Because mistakes in the test >>proceedings must be called mistakes ALSO if amateurs make the tests. If the >>amateurs couldn't know or couldn't avoid the mistakes then bad luck, but the >>fact remains that these mistakes happened. - All this is a bit difficult to >>differentiate but for one time I wanted to add this in case of the usual protest >>on my messages about the SSDF. ] > >Okay. > >Ed Thanks Ed. 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.