Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 08:44:55 11/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2004 at 11:23:09, Roger D Davis wrote: >On November 04, 2004 at 11:03:55, Peter Skinner wrote: > >>On November 04, 2004 at 00:31:56, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>Sorry but it isn't *correct* to say the same advertising was done for 5.0 from >>>432h. I don't mind if you choose not to believe what is written. But to lead >>>others to believe the same claims were made is not only wrong but IMO damages >>>Gandalf unfairly. >>> >>>http://www.rebel.nl/gandalf.htm >> >>Your right. It does not state that it was 100 elo better. I was wrong. It does >>however state: >> >>"Gandalf 5.0 is strong, clearly stronger than its predecessor version 4.32h." >> >>I don't think that was correct either. >> >>>That can/could be done without the use of the word "scam". >>> >>>Sarah. >> >>Personally I feel _any_ misleading/false advertising is a "scam". It is obvious >>that version 5.0 is _not_ clearly stronger than 4.32h. >> >>Authors should definately be more careful in their advertising of _their_ >>programs. >> >>Chess Tiger 2004 is in the same boat in some ways. It was advertised as being >>stronger and faster than Chess Tiger 15.0. Is it? Definately. Is it showing it? >>No. Why? There is a book problem. The engine itself is producing stronger moves >>than CT 15.0, and is in fact faster. The advertising here was fine. >> >>As I said before. I hope that all the advertising for Gandalf turns out to be >>true. I used to be a tester for Steen, and I wish him all the best. Truely I do. >>Gandalf was one of my favorite programs due to it's playing style. I just hope >>for the program's sake the advertising turns out to be true. >> >>Peter > >I would agree...any advertising that a program is "clearly stronger" than a >predecessor when it is not, is a sales tactic based on statements that are >untrue. This is practically the definiton of "scam". > >Roger Hi, but don't forget ... It's not the company with make a bad work with such "news information" ... clearly stronger! The users too!! If I read in much fora the comments by users, if a new program is available, is this not fairly to the work which have the work with it. The Gandalf programmer work a long time with "I know" a good team to make the program stronger. A company for sell now the program and to write it's 100 stronger is OK. I wrote for Ruffian 2.0.0 CD-Rom, only one ... one of three positions in the handbook ... The strongest WB Engines, not on two other positions (a mistake by myself). But in fact with ponder = off I tested the program Ruffian is the strongest WB engines we have today. Not with ponder and here I make a mistake and the users comes with bad comments in this time. OH, look Frank make a mistake seems to be for much user more interesting as to write ... what a great new version from Per-Ola. This is not fairly to the persons which try to make a good work. And believe me I try my best for the production I can make. Users must learn it before to set such comments in chess fora. But what we learn with it: In all cases I know ... the same group of users! I know from a Gandalf beta testers, he wrote me for around one year that Gandalf is around 40-50 stronger as Gandalf 4.32h. If this user say such things to me I can be sure that is right! Because we have users with a good name and users with a bad name in chess fora. Sorry, but this is fact! The Gandalf test team with Franz Wiesenekker for an example is a very good team and I know much others from the team with work on it (much of this persons help me I have start the Gandalf 4.32 beta test in one of my fora systems). I am thinking if Gandalf 6 now 75 ELO stronger or 50 ELO stronger ... what is this for a different? In fact I know this program is stronger and 75 ELO to Gandalf 4.32h are possible! The comment by Lokasoft is OK for me! In the time Gandalf 4.32h is available, on the same day Gambit-Soft start the marketing for it ... comes the message Gandalf 5 is available soon. This is absolutely clear that such a strong program cann't be a lot better. Clear for everyone wich can clear thinking and of course a bad message from Lokasoft. But nobody is perfect and if Lokasoft have such results we must know it. Unfortunatley, Gandalf 5.1 isn't stronger as Gandalf 4.32h but a company can find it not in such a short time. If the programmers make bigger improvements but the improvements are not bigger for get more ELO is this not bad. The programmer try the best for the marketing of course Steen for the users too. I had a lot of contacts to Steen and Steen gave me the comment in this time ... In my bad English (will not search the mail, to many work): Yes Frank, I will make my program comapatible to all GUIs and Steen try to find out the problems with the WB adapter and created own parameter for Gandalf and Gandalf works perfect with the "bad" WB adapter by ChessBase in this times. This is a point the user must see ... he try to make the best for the users! I am sure that Gandalf is improved because I have this information from a persons which give 100% right information. The information in one year old and in this time Gandalf is around 40-50 ELO improved to Gandalf 4.32h. 75 ELO are possible, perhaps more ... But more important is: The users will get a program which played very very nice chess and today it's not important if a program have around 25 or 50 ELO more as the number 1. Important is that the program is playing nice chess and the customer have much more fun with such program. Only the hardcore freaks which prefer other GUIs or other programs will give bad comments in chess fora. This we can see daily. Best Frank
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.