Author: Chessfun
Date: 10:10:44 11/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 1999 at 07:19:49, Micheal Cummings wrote: >On November 28, 1999 at 06:45:10, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On November 28, 1999 at 05:10:03, Jürgen Hartmann wrote: >> >>>There is no doubt that Chess Tigers good SSDF result is valid. Many other >>>testers reported the same or better scores. >>> >>>Why not simply congratulate Christophe Théron to his excellent work? >> >>(Sad, pathetic, hilarious: you pick), isn't it? > >In my other posts I did congradulate Chris and Chess Tiger. But it is hard to >make comment about the fairness of the list without making tiger to be a bad >person in all of this, which of course they are not. > >Of course the results are valid, the games were played. But that does make it >the list a true reflection of how things are. > >I like Christopher, I am not complaining about his program, I am complaining >AGAIN how the SSDF conducts their list. > >And I stand by my words that a program that is not available to the public >should not be on the list. These types of programs have their time to shine >during WCC. Why would I care about a program I will not be able to play. That is >why programs that we cannot use should not be included. > >Until they can play much more programs on faster hardware then this list means >very little to me in the order which it stands today. > >If tiger is number 1 when more programs have been played on the faster hardware, >it will not change my view on it, which is positive. It is ahead of five other >programs, so it must be strong, but it is not ahead in my view of other top >programs on the market until they have at least had the chance. > >All this crap about being a poor sport and the like is pure rubbish. To me the >list is like Carl Lewis running the 100 meters against 5 year olds and claiming >to be the best when he wins. > >Or Capablanca or Kasparov picking and chosing crap opponents and setting high >playing fees in order to keep them on top. Results in those cases are valid, BUT >FAIR ? > >These results are not even representative of 50% of the programs. This is NOT a >chess tiger complaint, This arguement carried on from the last list. > >I challenge the SSDF selective playing list with the Cummings World Rankings >List > >CM6K >Rebel 10 >Shredder 2 > >This list is quite simple the programs have all played each other in the same >amount of games and are ranked on who won the most games. How credible is my >list compared to the SSDF. > >And how dare anyone pick on my list or the programs ranked. If anyone does you >are either sore losers, poor sports, spoil sports. I did my best with the >prgrams and resources I had. > >Apart from how I rank my programs, every other aspect sounds like the SSDF. > >The SSDF should get a list that is representative to as many programs they can, >or simply change the way they publish the list. Micheal, I think I posted something along the lines of the SSDF should not test Tiger when they said in September they would as I stated it wasn't available commercially. As I recall it was really only you and I that were advocating at that time that CM6K should and must be tested on the newer PC's, when the SSDF posted here what they would in fact be testing. I like you see a limited value in a list that is incomplete. I myself find it odd that with rebel and tiger, Ed and Christophe collaborating that rebel still remains untested yet tiger is tested. Naturally there are issues of resources and of programs that do not wish to be tested (rebel and shredder) and the amount of new programs on the market which we all want to see tested, yet it is strange that the No 1 program on a P200 machine cannot be tested on newer hardware. I have naturally read others posts here on Tiger beating CM6K yet how can I believe something that I cannot independently varify when Tiger is not available for me to buy. Part of the frustration with this list IMHO is that Tiger is not available Will I buy it when it is released, sure, but I would buy any program that makes it in the top 10. My post here is not in anyway directed at Tiger, more at the way the SSDF chooses to test or not test a program. I see no legal reason why they cannot test Rebel and Shredder though naturally legal suits don't need to be issued just because you expect to win, sometimes the cost of litigation alone can get you the desired results and with the SSDF I think this is the most likely reason they have not tested these programs. Thanks.
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.