Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:38:05 09/03/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2005 at 05:10:45, David Mitchell wrote: >On September 02, 2005 at 17:24:41, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 02, 2005 at 09:02:09, A. Cozzie wrote: >> >>>>I really cannot see the point here. Do you mean that Leo is not trustable ??? >>> >>>No, the point was: Leo is not getting a copy for WBEC because no one is getting >>>a copy until its released. At that point he can do whatever he wants re >>>including Zappa in WBEC. >>> >>>Actually I wasn't annoyed so much about this post as much as the 'from zappa's >>>play on playchess it is obvious it plays lots of weak moves and we are not >>>afraid of it etc' >>> >>>Anyway, you will get your chance to kick zappa in a few weeks so be patient :) >>> >>>anthony >> >>I think that you do a mistake when you give noone a copy before Zappa2.0 is >>released. >> >>My opinion is that this and the way you treated Leo will not encourage people to >>buy Zappa. >> >>I did not decide if I will buy zappa and certainly the fact that you escape from >>tournament like WBEC will not encourage me to buy it. >> >>I think that getting 3th place in WBEC after Fruit WCCC and Shredder is better >>for you than not participating with Zappa2. >> >>Note that I did not say that it is obvious that zappa play a lot of weak moves >>but I am clearly disappointed from the fact that you did not give zappa2 to >>trusted testers like Leo so we can know nothing about it's results before it is >>released. >> >>I decided not to buy Zappa immediately when it is released and I will wait to >>result of testers and I will buy it only if I see that it performs well enough. >> >>Note that the delay in testing Zappa is not helping you because it is possible >>there are going to be better free programs some weeks after zappa is released so >>performance that is today good enough to justify buying zappa will not be good >>enough later. >> >>Uri > >You're joking, right? > >Zappa gave an incredibly strong performance, one of the strongest in many years >at WCCC, and you're not thinking it's strong enough to buy? That it needs >further results from amateur testers? Yes The fact that AC does not give it to Leo to test it in WBEC suggest that it may be not as strong as I thought and maybe the results in WCCC were mainly thanks to a good book that was based on the opponent and 4 processors. My impression based on the results of WCCC was that zappa is probably better than Fruit2.1(not necessaraly better from Fruit WCCC). Not participating in WBEC suggests to me that it may be weaker than what I thought. I know that AC did not promise that it is going to be better than fruit2.1 and I do not expect him to promise things that he is not sure about them but I hate seeing a program escaping from tournaments. For me as a customer WBEC is more important than WCCC. The fact that a programmer choose to participate in WCCC and does not want his best version to participate in WBEC seems strange to me. I can understand better programmers who do not play in WCCC because of the cost of it then programmers who refuse to play with their best version in WBEC when they need to pay no money for it. > >You're really joking, right? > >As you mentioned, Uri, AC has to get Zappa ready to roll out the door now - no >time to spare. Padderborn, and further testing will have to wait until Zappa is >ready to go. Having a tester working on a beta copy is just a poor idea, now. Not having a tester to work on a beta copy suggest that the thing is weaker than what people believe so I think that it does not encourage sales. 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.