Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 04:00:15 11/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 21:09:44, Mogens Larsen wrote: >That can be quite easy. If you make a review about the analysis function of >Rebel Tiger II (I assume it has one) the impression would be subjective when it >comes to usability and evaluation. An independent reviewer would explain what he >likes and dislikes about that function and why. If the why's are bogus or if the >flaws of the program are skipped then there's reason to believe that the >reviewer has an agenda. I did not read any of the rebel-beta-tester reviews so far. maybe i have to do today to understand what you say. i wonder if the above thing you say is an example and there has really somebody written about this function without you beeing satisfied about. IMO a program needs to have multiple-variation mode like almost all chessbase engines support. this way you can find out about the position very very early. good moves are normally within the first 5 branches of the move order, so looking the first branches of a chess program up to a certain depth gives you a clear image which branches are worth analysing and which are completely senseless. further i don't like chess programs with asymmetric score. when it analyses a position, and says +0.13 for white in ply/search 16 and i input the first move of its main line, and it says suddenly +1.09 for black i wonder how you want to use this engine for analysis. also asymmetric search is shit (genius comes to my mind), you let it consider very very long. and one ply later it comes with completely different main-lines ! >A review should contain both parts IMHO. An objective and relatively thorough >examination of features (plus and minus) and a subjective impression on how they >operate according to the reviewer. Most of the reviews at the Rebel site only >contain the latter part. ah ! i have to read them. i don't remember exactly WHO was in the beta-test crew, since some of them used anon names, or strange names i never heard. maybe these people are not professional writers/testers or do not have the time to write a good review. imo a good review needs much time. when i wrote a review in those old days of dedicated machines, the first stage was the collecting data and impression time. it took nearly almost 1 month. then an idea came out of the data. i tried to follow the idea and tested some special positions that should decline or prove the idea. than another month to write the review. meanwhile, at a weekend, the guy called B.Schne...r came, quoted 89% of the handbook and presented NO single chess move. so i needed at least 2 month to write something about the machine, and he came and made his "best articles" at a week-end. i stopped competing this senseless contest. if the magazine is not interested in good reviews, but instead is interested in shallow stuff, they shall do it. >But this time it's only my opinion, so everyone can do what they please. I'm >only explaining how I would do it. yes. your ideas come very close to my own. >Now it's close to bedtime I think or maybe breakfast. :-))) >Mogens.
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.