Letter from Goran Grottling
Goran Grottling
Dear everybody!
I have been away from this newsgroup for a couple of weeks due to my work. This evening I have been reading lots of
letters with opinions about the SSDF rating list (which I once created).
I feel just dead-tired about this never-ending discussion about a few ratingpoints here and there.
I feel dead-tired about comments from people who knows nothing about statistics and cannot understand how a certain
meeting could end with 8-12 instead for the expected 12-8.
I feel dead-tired about comments from people like Rolf Tueschen, who are making a big thing about why the SSDF "stopped"
matches which "ended" 4-2. Maybe there will come more games in the future? But, why doesn't Rolf play the games himself?
I and Thoralf Karlsson once started this SSDF testing for our own fun, our own interest. We have put down a lot of time in
computer chess the last 15 years, and we have done it for our own amuse. We have also done it for the pleasure in knowing
that our work is appreciated by many people, both in Sweden and in other countries.
We believe that we have succeeded very well. We have earned a lot of respect for our independence. We (the rating list)
have been quoted in international chess computer press for years. We have also managed to have very good relations between
us and the top programmers in the world. We are getting copies from their programs directly from Lang, Schroeder, Uniacke,
Hirsch. de Koning, Donninger and some else. The very exception is Chessbase, which during the years have developed a hostile
relation to us. This has not at all influenced our testwork with Fritz, but it has sometimes delayed it.
I believe that this good relationship with the programmers has something to do with that they are relying to us. They
don't think we are taking the results from our imagination.
Anyway, I and Thoralf are thinking like this: Do we really have to take all this shit on the r.g.c.c.? Do we really have
to stand accusations for dishonesty, when we are doing something in our spare time, something for our own fun, something for
the members in the SSDF?
The answer is obviously "no!". I do not want to be upset every time I log in to Usenet and read the letters in r.g.c.c.
And I cannot put my time in answering ridiculous letters from Nuts like Rolf Tueschen ( and a few others...)
And I will not take part in pointless discussions about how we will react on future inventions about giving the programs
information about which opponent they are playing against. Ed! Why can you not just relax, enjoy the fact that you for the
moment are the No 1 on the list? Why raising questions, which purpose are only to crush the importance of the SSDF rating
list?
It is very obvious from the last months' discussions about "killer-lines", that there is no solution about how to do the
computer-testing, which everybody can agree upon. Whatever I and Thoralf had decided, we had been critisized.
But Ed is still critisizing our decision. He cannot lay down and rest - enjoying the fact that he is the new No 1. - in
spite of all nasty killer lines...
Well, I and Thoralf doesn't have enough time to waste on this endless discussion about the SSDF methods, which we always
have been openely told about.
So, our conclusion (to have peace...) is from now, not to upload the SSDF rating list in the r.g.c.c. And we may have some
restrictions for publishing the SSDF list in foreign magazines.
The list will still be available from the SSDF homepage. Maybe with no comments at all (because they can always be
(mis)quoted and attacked).
People who doesn't like our list are adviced not to download the list!
And I hope that this will close all discussions about the list here on the r.g.c.c. The rating list will of cource still
be published in our magazine PLY and - as said - on our homepage on the Internet.
So nothing is going to stop us! We will still make the list with the same rules as before. But the list is maked for our
members and not for "the whole world".
We advice Ed to make a list with rules that he can approve. We will give him all necessary data. We know that he has the
resources for autoplaying. And we are looking forward to the new "Ed Schroeder Rating List"!
We will of course give Rolf Tueschen all needed data. And we hope that he will manage to make his own rating list. It will
be nice to read it and compare it with our own! Die Rolf Tueschen Liste!"
Anybody who is displeased with this decision can flame Ed Schroeder, Rolf Tueschen and anybody other in that
anti-SSDF-crowd!
We will still respond on e-mails to us. (if they are polite and serious)
Best wishes to all of you,
Goran
Robert Hyatt
Goran Grottling (goran.g...@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote:
: Dear everybody!
: Goran
some simple advice from someone that's unbiased since I'm not "in the list"
at present:
Don't take anything you read here too seriously, particularly if it seems
overly hostile. Develop yourself some "net-skin" (thick skin) that can
weather the storm. Once everyone understands that *nothing* is perfect,
that perfection is impossible to obtain, and that perfection might be
meaningless, the discussions will again return to reality. I've discovered
that it's impossible to win all the time... the goal has to be to avoid
losing all the time. :)
Bob
Enrique Irazoqui
Dear Goran,
I fully sympathize with your position. First of all I want to thank you and
everybody at SSDF for delivering a rating list that is invaluable to me and
to many people. If this list wouldn't exist I would have to buy lots of
computers just to try to come with a rating list as similar as possible to
yours. I won't have to mortgage my house. Thanks again.
SSDF's list has a great commercial impact. Many people will buy the highest
rated program, and this is an unavoidable source of criticism. I understand
very well Bob Hyatt and Brucemo when they state that even if only to avoid
this kind of disputes they prefer to stay non-commercial.
Still, you can differentiate two kinds of criticism. One would be devoid of
thought, based on bad faith and to be ignored, and the other would reflect
the desire to come with a "perfect" list: no double games, no killer lines,
identical computers and so on. In my opinion, as I stated in my last post
about this topic, it is not feasible to produce such a list.
SSDF has done a great job during many years. I hope it will continue and
the rating list will be available just as before.
Enrique
Howard Exner
Goran Grottling <goran.g...@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote in article
<58t2po$e...@mn5.swip.net>...
> Dear everybody!
snip..
I eagerly await the monthly SSDF rating list. I see it primarily as a
huge
source of data. The results of the individual matches, whether
they be large or small, is simply painstaking data collection. Now
the
fun and frustration begins when this big data pool is interpreted. In
the human interpretation of data be prepared for all kinds of
"spins".
We interpret individually and weight differently the data. Some have
individually
interpreted this data (and so we all can) but then have concluded
that SSDF is not doing this or that. The public of course can express
their
opinions on any data they choose (ie:because Buster Douglas has a 1-0
record against Mike Tyson some may claim Buster is the greatest ever)
but
the same public will debate such conclusions.
Surely the SSDF list is not above the interpretations of it's
readers.
If anything the list provides a springboard for discussion. It's when
we
equate our debates to perceived SSDF intentions that errors in
thinking
occur.
I empathize with your frustration as someone providing a free,
time consuming service yet receiving a wave of criticism. However, I
didn't quite share your opinion of lumping Rolf's ramblings with Ed's
thought provoking discussions. But again that's just our different
interpretations.
Peter Fendrich
Calm down Goran!
IMO most people here seems to like the list and they do indeed have
realistic expectations from it.
So far in this group Ed hasn't said anything that makes him belonging
to the (as far as I know) very small group of anti-SSDF people.
He doesn't like cooked lines and I can understand that. SSDF doesn't
agree with his proposed 'solution' of it. That's all! Different opinions
is just fine to me, thats life...
Lots of peculiar stuff comes and goes.
Rolf is either stupid or cheating. I don't care whatever it is... :)
The more these people writes (and that is much!) the more they reveals
themself.
Let them shout ... :-)
--
J-P Fendrich
Kjell Tore Sandum
: IMO most people here seems to like the list and they do indeed have
: realistic expectations from it.
Agreed! Besides, I think that *if* all us who agree with SSDF's test
methods would speak up and post answers to the criticism, we would start
the longest thread ever here on rgcc...
KT
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Kjell.T...@hiMolde.no / Molde College_/
_/ Tel: +47 71 21 40 00 / \ / P. Box: 308 _/
_/ Fax: +47 71 21 41 00 / \ / N-6401 Molde _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
brucemo
Kjell Tore Sandum wrote:
>
> : IMO most people here seems to like the list and they do indeed have
> : realistic expectations from it.
>
> methods would speak up and post answers to the criticism, we would start
> the longest thread ever here on rgcc...
I am neutral on the subject of the impact of the SSDF list, but I think
the people who are spending time on it are doing it for the right
reasons.
Sometimes you can argue with your attackers but other times you just have
to let them call you names for 500 lines. Bob's advice about developing
a thick skin is good advice.
The best defense against the attacks of ranting net lunatics is a good
reputation.
bruce
ChessBase GmbH
Dear Goran,
Thoralf Karlsson announced that you will start to publish all the games
played for the list on your web site as consequence of the discussion of
in r.g.c.c? Is this still on?
Please count me among those who have always respected the effort you put
into the list into your private time.
Hostile regards,
Matthias Wuellenweber, ChessBase GmbH, 100114,24...@compuserve.com
Herbert Groot Jebbink
> Anybody who is displeased with this decision can flame Ed Schroeder,
>Rolf Tueschen and anybody other in that anti-SSDF-crowd!
I think the word "crowd" is to much to say, some people can make a lot
of noise, but most off us (the quiet ones) in this newsgroup like your
work a lot, thanks so far, and I will visit the SSDF homepage every
month.
Greetings, hgj
Chris Whittington
> anti-SSDF-crowd!
> Best wishes to all of you,
>
> Goran
>
>
>
>
I think you should reconsider.
Those of us with brains and interest want to see your list.
Always if you do or make something, the ones who can't do and
can't make will criticise. That's their problem.
Often there are others who will criticise from a position of
knowledge. If they have a brain, you can profitably dialog with
them (I think of Ed here).
There's a limit as to subjects to discuss on this group. So SSDF
is maybe 10% or more of discussion. Discussion means disagreement,
but you can cope with that, no ?
Stupid nonsense, if it goes on too long, becomes a problem, and its
up to our community to deal with it.
Take KK. He posts a lot of piffle, but it can be profitable. And
sometimes its quite amusing. You can post to him, he'll respond, he's
not malicious and, ultimately, he's a benefit to the group - did I
say that :)
But malicious long-term repetitive slanders from Tueschen are
another matter altogether. Ed has had to fight him to defend
himself. I just ignore him. SSDF and Mader have lost patience
and want no more of it. So Tueschen has become a liability
and I think its time to deal with him.
So, SSDF and Andreas Mader, come back where you belong, namely
right here; and the r.g.c.c. community will take it apon
itself to send Tueschen where he belongs. Windows 95 calls it
the recycle-bin.
SSDF ?
Andreas Mader ?
Anyway, whatever you decide, please keep sending me the list
by private email. For this in the past, thanks.
Chris Whittington
mclane
"Howard Exner" <hex...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
>Goran Grottling <goran.g...@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote in article
><58t2po$e...@mn5.swip.net>...
>> Dear everybody!
>snip..
>I eagerly await the monthly SSDF rating list. I see it primarily as a
>huge
>source of data. The results of the individual matches, whether
>they be large or small, is simply painstaking data collection. Now
>the
>fun and frustration begins when this big data pool is interpreted. In
>the human interpretation of data be prepared for all kinds of
>"spins".
Right.
So do I.
>We interpret individually and weight differently the data. Some have
>individually
>interpreted this data (and so we all can) but then have concluded
>that SSDF is not doing this or that. The public of course can express
>their
>opinions on any data they choose (ie:because Buster Douglas has a 1-0
>record against Mike Tyson some may claim Buster is the greatest ever)
>but
>the same public will debate such conclusions.
"Fight for the right"...
> Surely the SSDF list is not above the interpretations of it's
>readers.
>If anything the list provides a springboard for discussion. It's when
>we
>equate our debates to perceived SSDF intentions that errors in
>thinking
>occur.
> I empathize with your frustration as someone providing a free,
>time consuming service yet receiving a wave of criticism.
When I remeber it right, it is the first time that we have an
international uncencored forum to debate the critics concerning the
ssdf-list.
In the years before the critics were (harmless said) filtered by
computerschach-spiele or did not reached goran and co.
I don't want Goran to be frustrated. He is doing a good job. But it
should be allowed to discuss about the WAY the games were COUNTED, the
decision WHICH programs were tested and on WHICH machines.
It was not my intention to stop him from publishing . I said that it
is overestimated and more: misued for commercial interests.
I was very much positively surprised when I got emails from Goran
saying they discuss in internal circles and that they would decide how
to make their system better . Also he posted this . So I thought:
Brilliant. If critics, done however, can bring some people in charge
to think about changes, than it is ok.
Now I am again surprised that Gorans famous last words imply that he
gives up, in a way I don't like.
It was my intentiion and my critics that SSDF-list is NOT published
here, and it was my point that the games are NOT published.
Now they decide that they don't want to publish anymore here and there
because WHEN they publish everybody critisizes them.
Dear Goran,
many people here in the newsgroup have said to you: don't stop. Don't
refuse. Please listen to them.
You will maybe not listen to me, because you think I am against you.
But listen to them.
In my opinion critics have one destination: to positively change the
world.
If you now give up because me/ the anti-ssdf-groups have attacked you
too much, it will not change the things positively.
Only publishing , open the rules and the cards, can completely make
people trust you. Also enemies. As a member of the anti-ssdf list, I
beg you not to take these consequences out of the debate.
That was not my destination.
I always critisize people or things I think they are WORTH to sent
them critics. Youre list was always worth it.
Whenever I have met a programmer with a good program, I have told him:
send free-copies of your program to the ssdf-guys, that they can test
it.
Come one, don't put the head into the sand.
>However, I
>didn't quite share your opinion of lumping Rolf's ramblings with Ed's
>thought provoking discussions. But again that's just our different
>interpretations.
From Gorans letter we can feel his pain.
If you now give up, and do not publish the list, this is what some
people (not me) wanted who criticized you.
Best wishes....
Rolf W. Tueschen
goran.g...@mailbox.swipnet.se (Goran Grottling) wrote:
> Dear everybody!
> I have been away from this newsgroup for a couple of weeks due to my work. This evening I have been reading lots of
>letters with opinions about the SSDF rating list (which I once created).
> I feel just dead-tired about this never-ending discussion about a few ratingpoints here and there.
> I feel dead-tired about comments from people who knows nothing about statistics and cannot understand how a certain
>meeting could end with 8-12 instead for the expected 12-8.
> I feel dead-tired about comments from people like Rolf Tueschen, who are making a big thing about why the SSDF "stopped"
>matches which "ended" 4-2. Maybe there will come more games in the future? But, why doesn't Rolf play the games himself?
>
> Anyway, I and Thoralf are thinking like this: Do we really have to take all this shit on the r.g.c.c.? Do we really have
>to stand accusations for dishonesty, when we are doing something in our spare time, something for our own fun, something for
>the members in the SSDF?
> The answer is obviously "no!". I do not want to be upset every time I log in to Usenet and read the letters in r.g.c.c.
>And I cannot put my time in answering ridiculous letters from Nuts like Rolf Tueschen ( and a few others...)
> We advice Ed to make a list with rules that he can approve. We will give him all necessary data. We know that he has the
>resources for autoplaying. And we are looking forward to the new "Ed Schroeder Rating List"!
> We will of course give Rolf Tueschen all needed data. And we hope that he will manage to make his own rating list. It will
>be nice to read it and compare it with our own! Die Rolf Tueschen Liste!"
> Anybody who is displeased with this decision can flame Ed Schroeder, Rolf Tueschen and anybody other in that
>anti-SSDF-crowd!
> We will still respond on e-mails to us. (if they are polite and serious)
>Best wishes to all of you,
>Goran
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Might it be allowed to give some commentary on The Letter?
1 The substancial stuff
In the relative threads from Exams on ... to The SSDF ... I asked questions.
The single judgement that was added was that if this was really such and such
this would be called cheating.
Niw I never got answers on my questions. Only recently Dave did explain some of
SSDF procedures. But even those can't stand all critics.
The most astonishing fact is the different game quantity of the matches. Not
that they are just played as such but that you already took them into your
calculations. And that IS whithout any doubt cheating.
Look, if you take a match at 2-4 how'd you know that it wouldn't be 5-15 at the
*end* of your defined limit? You always told us that this didn't matter at all
because *enough* other games would show up. I therefore searched for e.g. a 3-0
win. And I found it. Now you would think, well, 2-4 plus 3-0, that's not bad
after all. game *IS* game. And I would reply, no, not at all. A game in the 2-4
match more IS comparable to the others but NOT a game from another match
between other competitors. Why? Because a win against a higher-rated opponent
does count *more*. Is this so difficult to understan?
Now, I started thinking about this completely without any single match results.
I only saw the lists in the mags with the deviations. And for me it was sine
qua non prediction that at least the individual numbers of the games was the
same in ALL matches. My very first question derived from the opponent Elo you
always gave at the end of each line. And there I did see a big cheating factor.
I thought it minimum statistics that you matched always comparable opponents to
get comparably exact Elo results. Because everyone knows that playing higher
opponents is better for your Elo!
I stop it here because the other quests are elsewhere.
Now would you tell me what I should have done after seeing here the possibility
finally to ask questions? Did you expect knee falls?
2 Consequences of SSDF staff
I read that there would be no more info for rgcc. That one could write you
email.
Yes, that is nice behind the curtain. Bravissimo.
I read about tears coming from amateurs who do spend their precious free time
on testing. What do you think all others are doing?
You are fed up with shit critics and quests. Please read Howard. Could it be a
misunderstanding about the positive side of critics? Can't you see that all
this posts to you are a good measure how really important all of us do find
your work?!
For the moment that looks like you really had something to hide.
If the new learning feature is common use you won't be able to continue as
before any way. Why therefore stopping communication?
Instead you want a Ed or Rolf listing ...
That's funny. Would you really think that we could do that like you with all
your experience? Isn't it a totally royal misunderstanding?
I for my part I declare that I would like that you continue your testing with a
better feedback line to all of us. I dont know anyone who wanted to kill SSDF.
But I must also tell you that. It is one of the meanest reactions to deliver
unwanted people to the crowd. Which you had prepared with aggression coming
from frustration you imputed with your claim being crucified by these critcs.
Now go and get them... That's called fascistic behaviour. Period.
3 Some ideas about commercial interests
I'd like to follow future happenings. As is well known the SSDF listings has
primarily the effect on interested chess players who want to buy new prgs.
By closing some info channels SSDF does give the business guys an important
hint. *Look, we are in difficulties, there are a few, primarily a Rolf ...
who's always hurting us. So we couldn't continue as before. Either you'll
follow our given rules or you'll take the consequences ... Ed, stop your
thoughts (!), be satisfied with what you got, but stop that. Write email if you
want but not in public. Others will take advantage of you.*
Where should this all end?
Well, this like: SSDF: Hello? Ah, Ossi, look, either you send us 20 Pentitories
à P700 each 6 000 $$ or we do testings with 386/SX. What?--- Ah, I understand
ok. Next week. Hm. And don't forget this PORSCHE 20002. Two, yes. For my friend
too. And the head of Garcia Rudolfo. Yes, only the head. You have 2 weeks.
Afterwards it costs you your own head.
Hope that this was completely fictional.
Conclusion
You did a great job for all, business and users. But please keep your eyes open
when critics came along. You'll never know if there's some good ideas you could
need. I'm sure that you're smart enough to laugh about what you said yesterday.
Best wishes for further good results from SSDF and all testers included.
Rolf Tueschen
----*Man is unable not to know what he knows.* Leibowitz----
a bean
Greetings and Good-will to Goran!
Ed! Why can you not just relax, enjoy the fact that you for the
| moment are the No 1 on the list? Why raising questions, which purpose are
only to crush the importance of the SSDF rating
| list?
The fact that Ed is indeed No.1 on the list should tell you that Ed's
comments (and others as well) are designed to be constructive and not
destructive.
Give a reproof to a wise person and he will love you. Give to a wise
person and he will become still wiser. Impart knowledge to someone
righteous and he will increase in learning.
| It is very obvious from the last months' discussions about
"killer-lines", that there is no solution about how to do the
| computer-testing, which everybody can agree upon. Whatever I and Thoralf
had decided, we had been critisized.
There is a solution in my opinion - why do you feel it to be criticism?
[Formulation of a standardized Chess Aptitude Test.]
SSDF could then generate both the CAT and OTB rankings -
a method that would yield much PRAISE from at least one person (o:}
--
Catchulater Co.
{:o) /|\|/|\|/\ (o:}
{:o) ( @ @) (o:}
{:o) ( _> ) (o:}
-------o00o---------o00o-------
*@*=*@*=*@*=*@*=*@*
[keep seeking the Truth]
spr...@discover-net.net
Eric Hallsworth
In article <58t2po$e...@mn5.swip.net>, Goran Grottling <goran.grottling@m
ailbox.swipnet.se> writes
> We believe that we have succeeded very well. We have earned a lot of
> respect for our independence.
> We (the rating list) have been quoted in international chess computer
> press for years.
> So, our conclusion (to have peace...) is from now, not to upload the
> SSDF rating list in the r.g.c.c.
> The list will still be available from the SSDF homepage.
> The rating list will of cource still be published in our magazine PLY
> and - as said - on our homepage on the Internet.
I am sure I speak for a great majority when I confirm, Goran, how much
very many of us *appreciate* the massive amount of 'work/fun' you do in
Sweden towards the grading of chess computers and programs. We enjoy and
look forward to your regular postings.
I am sad that a small minority - though they often manage to be a
majority in numbers of postings! do empty vessels make most noise?! :) -
have pushed you into this decision. I hope you will now receive plenty
of e-mail encouragement for your efforts, and that you will reconsider
the decision, even though those who wish can still get information they
want from the SSDF homepage, for which thanks.
--
Best wishes,
Eric Hallsworth, Computer Chess Magazine, The Red House,
46 High Street, Wilburton, Cambs CB6 3RA
Ed Schröder
From: goran.g...@mailbox.swipnet.se (Goran Grottling)
Dear Goran,
Dear other SSDF members,
I blew it! And I am sorry for that. I did not realize this but it has
never been my intention to hurt you or SSDF in any way.
I *LOVE* SSDF!
Maybe the following compare could help you to understand.
I am a father, I love my kids, I sometimes am angry on my kids and they
become angry on me because of that. It's normal and very healthy.
But does that mean that my kids do not love me anymore?
Or that I do not love my kids anymore?
I will always love my kids whatever they do!
This principal also counts for SSDF.
I love SSDF.
But I do have comments and sometimes critic.
Maybe it also helps to inform you that I receive dozen of emails from
people about SSDF who completely misunderstand the list.
Daily I receive postings about this SSDF crazyness.
Just one example:
For 3-4 months ago we had the following situations on the list:
1 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2420 28 -27 693 65% 2313
2 Genius 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2419 29 -28 620 64% 2320
3 Rebel 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2415 32 -31 500 60% 2342
4 Genius 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2412 28 -27 665 66% 2296
5 Rebel 7.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2411 28 -27 651 61% 2332
1 Genius 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2419 29 -28 626 64% 2319
2 MChess Pro 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2418 28 -27 699 65% 2312
3 Rebel 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2414 31 -31 520 60% 2339
4 Rebel 7.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2411 28 -27 671 61% 2329
5 Genius 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2408 27 -26 705 65% 2297
The first 5 programs with difference of only *9* and *11* points!!
Still I get dozen of emails saying:
Mchess5 is on top, Mchess5 is the best program!
And one month later Genius3 is the best program!
All based on *one* lousy ELO point.
Why on earth do people think that way?
This is certainly not the case in other sports.
If in soccer Liverpool is on top with 5 points will that make Liverpool
the best soccer team of England? At the moment PSV is a lot of points
above Ajax. Is PSV therefore better as Ajax? I do not think so.
No flames here please... :)
Whatever the reason is why people look different to the rating list
than they do to *other sports* I think that SSDF has a kind of moral
obligation to people to deal with this wrong image people have in their
minds and to produce the best list possible because the list
*seems to be* so important for many many people.
Perhaps you do not realize enough: You are a very high tree!!
And "high trees" get a lot of wind!
That's normal.
Some points to think about...
1.. Don't bother about people like Tueschen, their postings are 100% mud.
Only intention to hurt SSDF, negative critic instead of possitive critic.
2.. Don't bother too much about my postings, I say what's on my mind
because I think it is important that people must know all ins and outs.
It is much better than saying nothing, if you never get comments or critic
something is wrong. Just keep up the good work as best as you can.
SSDF is the best list we have...
I comment and sometimes have critic in order to keep it that way.
Simply use all information.
3.. Your list can *NEVER* be destroyed by anyone!
Your list is worldwide accepted as the best computer rating list.
If there was no SSDF list it would be invented!
Reason: People can not judge the playing strength themselves!
People need a list!
Look at all the reviews in the magazines when it comes to the subject
of playing strength, writers can not judge it anymore and often are
completely wrong.
Realize your strong position....
Relax...
: And I will not take part in pointless discussions about how we will
: react
: on future inventions about giving the programs information about which
: opponent they are playing against. Ed! Why can you not just relax, enjoy
: the fact that you for the moment are the No 1 on the list?
I do, really...
And you should enjoy your status too... :)
: So, our conclusion (to have peace...) is from now, not to upload the :
: SSDF
: rating list in the r.g.c.c. And we may have some restrictions for
: publishing the SSDF list in foreign magazines.
Hope you reconsider.
- Ed -
brucemo
Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
> SSDF's list has a great commercial impact. Many people will buy the highest
> rated program, and this is an unavoidable source of criticism. I understand
> very well Bob Hyatt and Brucemo when they state that even if only to avoid
> this kind of disputes they prefer to stay non-commercial.
To clarify, my comment was a joke :-)
bruce
Lonnie Cook
On 14 Dec 96 12:16:14 GMT, "Enrique Irazoqui" <en...@lix.intercom.es> wrote:
>Dear Goran,
>
>I fully sympathize with your position. First of all I want to thank you and
>everybody at SSDF for delivering a rating list that is invaluable to me and
>to many people. If this list wouldn't exist I would have to buy lots of
>computers just to try to come with a rating list as similar as possible to
>yours. I won't have to mortgage my house. Thanks again.
>SSDF has done a great job during many years. I hope it will continue and
>the rating list will be available just as before.
>
>Enrique
>
I second that! Keep up the good work with the SSDF list. Don't let these ungrateful
ones disuade you from your course. I personally look forward to seeing the list. I
use it as a "general" guideline to see the maturity of the programs.
같같같
Lonnie
Shin: A device for
finding furniture in the
dark.
Komputer Korner
Chris Whittington wrote:
>
snipped
snipped
>
>snipped
> Take KK. He posts a lot of piffle, but it can be profitable. And
> sometimes its quite amusing. You can post to him, he'll respond, he's
> not malicious and, ultimately, he's a benefit to the group - did I
> say that :)
>
> But malicious long-term repetitive slanders from Tueschen are
> another matter altogether. Ed has had to fight him to defend
> himself. I just ignore him. SSDF and Mader have lost patience
> and want no more of it. So Tueschen has become a liability
> and I think its time to deal with him.
>
> So, SSDF and Andreas Mader, come back where you belong, namely
> right here; and the r.g.c.c. community will take it apon
> itself to send Tueschen where he belongs. Windows 95 calls it
> the recycle-bin.
>
> SSDF ?
>
> Andreas Mader ?
>
> Anyway, whatever you decide, please keep sending me the list
> by private email. For this in the past, thanks.
>
> Chris Whittington
I would hope that the ICCA will be just as magnanimous when reading your
piffle, but what do I know? I am only a lowly komputer.
--
Komputer Korner
The komputer that kouldn't keep a password safe from
prying eyes, kouldn't kompute the square root of 36^n,
kouldn't find the real motive in ChessBase and missed
the real learning feature of Nimzo.
Peter Fendrich
Kjell Tore!
You'r probably right about this.
I still think, however, that nothing is better than open discussions to
keep the list and the testing methods in a good shape.
Especially now when when the impact of learning facilities will
change the testing conditions. My prediction is that within 1-2 years
the rating program and the test procedures has to be changed to keep up
with the changing conditions.
No need for mud throwing, there are real subjects to discuss ... :)
Kjell Tore Sandum wrote:
>
> : IMO most people here seems to like the list and they do indeed have
> : realistic expectations from it.
>
> Agreed! Besides, I think that *if* all us who agree with SSDF's test
> methods would speak up and post answers to the criticism, we would start
> the longest thread ever here on rgcc...
>
> KT
> --
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/ Kjell.T...@hiMolde.no / Molde College_/
> _/ Tel: +47 71 21 40 00 / \ / P. Box: 308 _/
> _/ Fax: +47 71 21 41 00 / \ / N-6401 Molde _/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
--
J-P Fendrich __
Volvo Data Corp. / /\
Dept 2400 HD3S / / \
Gothenburg /_/ /\ \
S-40508 Sweden __ \ \ \_\ \
/_/\ \ \ \/ /
\ \ \ \ \ /
\ \ \ _\ \ \
\ \ \/_/\ \ \
\ \ \_\/\ \ \
\ \ \ \_\/
__ \_\ \
/_/\/ / /
\ \ \/ /
\ \ /
\_\/
mclane
"a bean" <spr...@discover-net.net> wrote:
>Greetings and Good-will to Goran!
>Ed! Why can you not just relax, enjoy the fact that you for the
>| moment are the No 1 on the list? Why raising questions, which purpose are
>only to crush the importance of the SSDF rating
>| list?
>The fact that Ed is indeed No.1 on the list should tell you that Ed's
>comments (and others as well) are designed to be constructive and not
>destructive.
>
That is a point I really want to stress again:
Goran maybe always thought we wanted to kill him.
But our ideas were more constructively meant.
One other point: Ed can comment on what he wants.
This is the sense of newsgroups.
How or why should anybody tell Ed what to do, e.g. to enjoy or relax.
>Give a reproof to a wise person and he will love you. Give to a wise
>person and he will become still wiser. Impart knowledge to someone
>righteous and he will increase in learning.
>| It is very obvious from the last months' discussions about
>"killer-lines", that there is no solution about how to do the
>| computer-testing, which everybody can agree upon. Whatever I and Thoralf
>had decided, we had been critisized.
>There is a solution in my opinion - why do you feel it to be criticism?
I agree.
But there are many solutions. Only highlander is the single solution.
mclane
"Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>From: goran.g...@mailbox.swipnet.se (Goran Grottling)
>Dear Goran,
>Dear other SSDF members,
>I blew it! And I am sorry for that. I did not realize this but it has
>never been my intention to hurt you or SSDF in any way.
>I *LOVE* SSDF!
Says the leader of the list .... :-)
>Maybe the following compare could help you to understand.
>I am a father, I love my kids, I sometimes am angry on my kids and they
>become angry on me because of that. It's normal and very healthy.
>But does that mean that my kids do not love me anymore?
>Or that I do not love my kids anymore?
>I will always love my kids whatever they do!
I think I have used this analogy myself once before a while.
But you are totally right.
We have critisized Goran because we wanted that he continues his job.
And we wanted to help him, not to be misused by people who quote out
of ssdf because of certain commercial interests.
>This principal also counts for SSDF.
>I love SSDF.
>But I do have comments and sometimes critic.
I have the same point of view.
>Just one example:
You got the main point. This list was MISUSED . And it was NOT Goran
misusing the list !!!!!!
They have always pointed out: we do it for fun. And we know.
But we also know the people quoting out of it for commercial
interests.
>Perhaps you do not realize enough: You are a very high tree!!
>And "high trees" get a lot of wind!
>That's normal.
>Some points to think about...
>1.. Don't bother about people like Tueschen, their postings are 100% mud.
>Only intention to hurt SSDF, negative critic instead of possitive critic.
>2.. Don't bother too much about my postings, I say what's on my mind
>because I think it is important that people must know all ins and outs.
>It is much better than saying nothing, if you never get comments or critic
>something is wrong. Just keep up the good work as best as you can.
>SSDF is the best list we have...
Thats exactly my point. I also say what's on my mind.
>I comment and sometimes have critic in order to keep it that way.
>Simply use all information.
>3.. Your list can *NEVER* be destroyed by anyone!
>Your list is worldwide accepted as the best computer rating list.
>If there was no SSDF list it would be invented!
>Reason: People can not judge the playing strength themselves!
>People need a list!
>Look at all the reviews in the magazines when it comes to the subject
>of playing strength, writers can not judge it anymore and often are
>completely wrong.
We can enhance this. The publishers WANT to publish wrong review.
Better than a review that gives playing-strength is a review that
gives no playing-strength.
Better than having intelligent writers is, having writers I can form
and USE or better "misuse" !
This is done.
But we all can change it.
We can publish an internet-computer-chess-magazine where ALL can write
and comment without commercial interests.
>Realize your strong position....
>Relax...
I have heard about this from Goran. Didn't he said the same to you....
:-)
>: And I will not take part in pointless discussions about how we will
>: react
>: on future inventions about giving the programs information about which
>: opponent they are playing against. Ed! Why can you not just relax, enjoy
>: the fact that you for the moment are the No 1 on the list?
>I do, really...
Bill Newton
In article <l+48IBAQ...@elhchess.demon.co.uk>, Eric Hallsworth
<er...@elhchess.demon.co.uk> writes
>I am sad that a small minority - though they often manage to be a
>majority in numbers of postings! do empty vessels make most noise?! :) -
>have pushed you into this decision. I hope you will now receive plenty
>of e-mail encouragement for your efforts, and that you will reconsider
>the decision, even though those who wish can still get information they
>want from the SSDF homepage, for which thanks.
I add my total support to the above comments.
May I suggest that Goran ignores the discordant rantings of the few. I'm
sure the vast majority of readers within this newsgroup appreciate and
enjoy the efforts of himself and his colleagues in making contributions
to this forum.
It will be a sad day if the disagreeable few are successful in hounding
Goran and his talents out of this newsgroup.
Please Goran, reconsider your decision. Dont concede to the ill
considered, mind scrambling comments of the few!
Regards.
--
Bill Newton
graham_douglass
In article <59360m$3...@news.xs4all.nl>, "Ed says...
>
>From: goran.g...@mailbox.swipnet.se (Goran Grottling)
>
>Dear Goran,
>Dear other SSDF members,
>
>I blew it! And I am sorry for that. I did not realize this but it has
>never been my intention to hurt you or SSDF in any way.
I always thought it was wrong to "blame the referee" for not getting the result
you want - especially when the complaint is about a tactic which you can fight
against effectively (in my opinion).
Having said that, full credit to Ed for having the grace to apologise for the
unintended negative consequences of his posts.
I am guilty of "blaming the referee" myself. The standard of refereeing in the
1990 world cup was quite appalling. I still have not forgiven the Germans for
what they did in the semi finals. Paul Gascoine made what I regard as a fair
tackle, but the referee blew for a foul. That's OK - these things happen. But
then the entire German bench started jumping up and down making angry gestures,
and as a direct consequence the referee changed his mind and booked Paul. This
meant that if England got to the final, Paul would miss it. He was very upset,
and stopped playing well after that. This may have contributed to the German
win - it was certainly close. How is one supposed to enjoy sporting competition
under those circumstances?
I regard SSDF as "good referees", and the standard of the sport in computer
chess is, in my opinion, good.
>
>I *LOVE* SSDF!
(etc.)
{snip}
Bill Newton
Chris Whittington
Petit-bourgois nationalism.
But I know what you mean :)
Never mind, we beat them, twice.
Chris Whittington
Rolf Czedzak
wrote: <595ver$9...@lana.zippo.com>
GD> I always thought it was wrong to "blame the referee" for not getting
GD> the result you want - especially when the complaint is about a tactic
GD> which you can fight against effectively (in my opinion).
If two competitors tie up within (electronically measured) one hundredth
of a second, would you ask anybody to choose a winner? rember there is
no slow motion. ;-)
GD> I am guilty of "blaming the referee" myself. The standard of
GD> refereeing in the 1990 world cup was quite appalling. I still have
GD> not forgiven the Germans for what they did in the semi finals. Paul
To gain mutual respect and/or friendship among people of different
nations we should forbid sports.
GD> Gascoine made what I regard as a fair tackle, but the referee blew
GD> for a foul. That's OK - these things happen. But then the entire
GD> German bench started jumping up and down making angry gestures, and
GD> as a direct consequence the referee changed his mind and booked Paul.
GD> This meant that if England got to the final, Paul would miss it. He
GD> was very upset, and stopped playing well after that.
Sounds like bad mental preparation. BTW I was really impressed by Paul
Gascoines acting in this particular game. When he got a rather rude
tackle by one of the defenders he just stood up, shook hands and
continued with the game. That was remarkable in times where
'dieing for the gallery' has become part of regular training.
Superfluous to say that it was his season with Tottenham that taught
Klinsmann to stay on his feet when entering the 17yard zone. ;-)
GD> This may have
GD> contributed to the German win - it was certainly close.
It wasn't raining, so You had no chance anyway. ;-)
Rolf
Rolf Czedzak
Chris Whittington wrote: <85092969...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>
CW> > may have contributed to the German win - it was certainly close.
CW> > How is one supposed to enjoy sporting competition under those
CW> > circumstances?
CW>
CW> Petit-bourgois nationalism.
CW>
CW> But I know what you mean :)
CW>
CW> Never mind, we beat them, twice.
You are talking about the '66 final, aren't You. How can you look
into somebody else's face and say 'We won by cheating, with the help
of a [mclane might fill in some decent words ;-)] referee. Let's enjoy!'?
Please help me, what was the second event? Some Tip-Kick (kind of
Suboteo, or however this childrens game is spelled) tournament? ;-))
Well, I don't think talking about soccer can be regarded off topic 'cause
its often played on bad grounds -almost mud ;-) - and thats exactly what
Rolf Tueschen is throwing.
CW> Chris Whittington
Rolf
graham_douglass
Point taken.
Haing (virtually) spoken to a real life German about the event, I feel I can
finally forgive.
Regards,
Graham
Harald Faber
Hello Goran,
GG> about. So, our conclusion (to have peace...) is from now, not to upload
GG> the SSDF rating list in the r.g.c.c. And we may have some restrictions for
GG> publishing the SSDF list in foreign magazines. The list will still be
GG> available from the SSDF homepage. Maybe with no comments at all (because
GG> they can always be (mis)quoted and attacked).
Hmm, what about a database with all played games that you take for the
list, you once said to post them or to put them onto your homepage. Will
it happen?
GG> Goran
Ciao and see ya
Harald
--
Cpsoft
Rolf Czedzak <r...@viking.ruhr.com> wrote in article <6NBJI...@09.viking.ruhr.com>...
> Chris Whittington wrote: <85092969...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>
>
> CW> > may have contributed to the German win - it was certainly close.
> CW> > How is one supposed to enjoy sporting competition under those
> CW> > circumstances?
> CW>
> CW> Petit-bourgois nationalism.
> CW>
> CW> But I know what you mean :)
> CW>
> CW> Never mind, we beat them, twice.
>
> You are talking about the '66 final, aren't You.
Er, no :)
> How can you look
> into somebody else's face and say 'We won by cheating, with the help
> of a [mclane might fill in some decent words ;-)] referee. Let's enjoy!'?
> Please help me, what was the second event?
Well, the first was the first and the second was the second.
Help him, Peter G. :)
Chris Whittington
mclane
Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org (Harald Faber) wrote:
>Hello Goran,
>Hmm, what about a database with all played games that you take for the
>list, you once said to post them or to put them onto your homepage. Will
>it happen?
I thought Tony Hedlund does this job for us ?!
Harald Faber
Hello mclane,
m> From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
m> Subject: Re: Letter from Goran Grottling
m> Organization: Prima e.V. Dortmund
m>
m> >Hmm, what about a database with all played games that you take for the
m> >list, you once said to post them or to put them onto your homepage. Will
m> >it happen?
m> I thought Tony Hedlund does this job for us ?!
Right, I didn't receive the posting right in time.