Author: Albert Silver
Date: 14:41:16 07/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 1999 at 16:12:59, Charles Unruh wrote: >On July 26, 1999 at 09:09:07, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On July 26, 1999 at 03:55:58, Charles Unruh wrote: >> >>>On July 25, 1999 at 22:35:46, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>>On July 24, 1999 at 18:26:35, Charles Unruh wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I vote to Boycott any program that won't let itself be published by SSDF. I'm >>>>>tired of the true reason behind this. Which is best stated as "If I can't be #1 >>>>>don't put me on the list at all". Play the best chess is all you have to do. CM >>>>>isn't tuned against any program, doesn't have any special opening book, no >>>>>learning features, and yet it sits practically atop Everest. I don't even care >>>>>if they went as far as to say well test the prog like CM manually instead of >>>>>with an Autoplayer. Don't sit around trying to tell people they can't publish a >>>>>FREE non profit resource on the results of a program. As for the SSDF they >>>>>should never have let theirselves be bullied into listing secret programs in the >>>>>first place. >>>> >>>>It's a strange comment. What you are basically stating is that all programs have >>>>a duty to be on the SSDF list, and if they are not, then their interest as a >>>>program is reduced to dust. >>>> >>>> Albert Silver >>> >>>No not saying that at all. Simply stating that they are trying to deny me the >>>customer, certain information, >> >>It's a conspiracy then. > >Silver normally you make up some good post. This however is off. It's not a >conspircy it is an actual fact of the effect caused by their actions. When you state that they are trying to deny you information, then you are claiming it is a conspiracy. You may have not used the word, but that's what you're saying is. For example, I could claim that Fischer's refusal to return to competitive chess is an effort to deny me the pleasure of watching him play, as this is indeed the effect of his actions (or lack of), but of course, it has nothing to do with it. I don't think Schroeder (or whomever you had in mind) is trying to deny you the consumer of anything. I think he stopped believing in SSDF's objectivity when they created special hardware accomodations for Chessbase's Fritz 5. This was further aggravated when it was shown that the autoplayer being used (the same special one) was buggy, casting doubt on the accuracy of the results. I doubt this was deliberate on CB's part, but the fact still remains: at odd instances, some losing or lost results were erased. If your program were going to be judged (correctly or not) according to some tests that you felt had lost their objectivity, wouldn't you protest as well? > It is >these actions which are unjustified, firstly i believe injustifiable leagally. >Further based upon just what i said "If i can't be #1 don't put me on the list". > Companies can't call up consumer reports, or driver magazine and force them not >to publish results of testing that they have done. You are overlooking the reason. SSDF was wrong to accomodate Chessbase, but more seriously, when it was shown that the accuracy of some results had possibly been compromised then they should have canned the results. Not the program mind you, they should have tested it without the autoplayer, that's all. By refusing to do so they once again showed a bias in Chessbase's favor, whether intentional or not. The fact that it's a lot of work is no excuse. This never stopped them prior to the autoplayer's existence. > Yet here we are dealing with >a totally non profit organization with no interest in supporting one product >over another, and don't tell me that threatening to try to bring legal >actions(doomed to fall on it's face) to stop the SSDF if it did publish said >test results isn't bullying. > >> >>> and i will not support such a policy by >>>purchasing said software. Further they are trying to bully a non biased >> >>I think it's the other way around. >> >>The reason some programmers, like Schroeder, asked to have their programs >>removed from the list (not sure how that is qualified as bullying) is because >>they believe the objectivity of these results to have been compromised. >> >>Now when SSDF announce they are forced to test the programs under secret codes >>because of the programmers' decision, then not only are they deliberately not >>complying with the programmers' wish, but are also creating some very >>inapppropriate emotional blackmail. >> >>> and non >>>profit organization(SSDF) from releasing the only >> >>http://sccs.cjb.net/ >> >>> substantial test results > >Not hundreds of games of each prog and shep has his own rating system. You can >define substantial however you want. > >>>available of the product vs other comp programs. >>> I will not support this policy >>>either with my purchasinging power.
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.