Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:43:50 06/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2002 at 20:49:49, Omid David wrote: >On June 21, 2002 at 15:10:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 21, 2002 at 13:18:55, Randall Jouett wrote: >> >>>Howdy, GCP. >>> >>> >>>On June 21, 2002 at 09:54:18, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On June 21, 2002 at 07:45:56, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Is there anything at all about Quest which is different from the commercial >>>>>version of Fritz 7? >>>> >>>>The idea is that if Quest/Fritz wins the tournament, ChessBase can say >>>>Fritz won. If it loses, they will say it was Quest. >>> >>>OTOH, I guess you couldn't really blame them for doing this, I guess? >>>(Shrug.) In other words, let's say that they decided to try some new, >>>radical idea that might actually add 25-50 ELO points, but they're >>>not really sure if things are going to work out in the long run. If >>>Fritz would lose, its reputation would probably be tarnished by the >>>ignorant public. Personally, I wouldn't wouldn't think this way, >>>and I'm sure most of us who here would agree. OTOH, they're >>>dealing with the general public here, and if Fritz placed 3rd out of >>>the pack, then the public probably be all up in arms -- shouting from >>>the rafters! -- that some other program bested the mighty Fritz. >>> >>> >>>IMHO, I think should have entered the latest, greatest commerically-available >>>Fritz and maybe an experimental version of the program, calling it >>>something like thing "Fritz Experimental" or something. If the experimental >>>version of the program fails to work out, then they really haven't lost >>>all that much on their reputation. I mean, from what reading here, >>>I'm sure that most people following the tournament are going to know >>>(in the long run) that Quest is probably an experimental Fritz. Changing >>>the name of the program from Fritz to Quest, IMHO, kind of makes them >>>look guilty, as if they had something to hide. >>> >>> >>>Best Regards, >>> >>>Randall >> >> >>Call a spade a spade. It is a marketing ploy designed to mislead John Q. >>public. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is a way to exploit success while >>avoiding looking bad when the predictable bad result happens. > >I definitely agree. Such high profile tournaments are not meant for testing >"radical ideas" at mentioned. Everyone comes with the best he has at the moment. The decision if to gamble by a change that you have not enough time to test if it is a good change is a decision of the programmer. I do not believe that everyone comes with the best he has at the moment. Uri
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.