Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 22:02:38 09/28/99
I think there should be a seperate list for each type of hardware. Programs played on the new hardware should be ranked together and so to should the programs played on 200MMX machines, and so on. At the moment it is unacceptable how the current list is portrayed. I have seen companies use SSDF results to sell products, and the list is not reflective of the majority of programs used today. And as for any accusations about whether their was any corruption between the SSDF and Chessbase, well its too late now, the results are in and the list published. People only look at who is on the top, not what machine was used or how the result were obtained. I have seen in the past and still today shops selling Fritz stating it is number one on the SSDF world computer chess rankings. Not that it obtained it's No 1 position by beating 4 other programs on the same hardware and killing in ranking most all other programs on hardware that is less than great. Any accusations will most likely never be proven if there were any in the first place, politcal mistakes were made as to programs tested, and the list in my view whenever I look at it, makes me not want to look at it until the competition gets the same treatment. My gripe was always play as many programs on the same amount of hardware as you can. To me ten programs played and ranked on the same hardware is acceptable. On equal hardware CM6000 is top on the 200MMX machines, but because of insufficient testing, or non testing it is 5th overall. When if all programs still had been playing it on the 200 hardware it would be No 1 on the list again. So the four top programs should be placed on a seperate list until more programs are tested to make the results acceptable. Even if 6 progams are played and listed in the next SSDF list on the 450 machines, this is still unacceptable. I was first against the SSDF list, than supported cause it was getting the numbers more right in playing against each other on even hardware. Now I do not accept the top 4 placings of the list on the 450 machines. Stuff any corruption if there was any, I think people who use these programs would look at the list and see the machines used and be able to see for themselves which programs really ranks where. But it still does not help the other mass of people from those places who use this list for profit making and program selling. When your results get used in this way you do have a certain responsibility to make sure that the list and results are accurate and reflect the majority of todays programs, This has not happened, it has only helped a few and those few belong to a certain company, and even though I own none of those programs in the top 4, I can understand why people think things are being corrupted. More thinking should have been used to prevent this situation. I do not care what limitations the SSDF have, just that they should make damn sure that the list reflects most of the programs. My opinion change and seperate the list, or do not publish it till you get enough result to make the list more worthy of looking at. I would rather wait than to see this current list. To me expecially with CM6000 which has been in the top two for the last few lists, It is like Golf majors tournaments, you do not invite the best to play where the big ranking points are earned and you get a list which shows lesser players higher than they really should be. My point Nimzo99 is not worthy for a top four place.
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.