Author: David Mitchell
Date: 03:45:14 09/03/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2005 at 05:38:05, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 03, 2005 at 05:10:45, David Mitchell wrote: > >>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? > >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. This makes no sense to me. You know that many of the programs in WCCC used multiple processors, some used twice as many as Zappa. > >My impression based on the results of WCCC was that zappa is probably better >than Fruit2.1(not necessaraly better from Fruit WCCC). And after AC is finished with it, we can all begin testing it, right? > >Not participating in WBEC suggests to me that it may be weaker than what I >thought. Why doesn't it suggest to you that AC, as a grad student, and with a commercial product to now prepare quickly is very very, busy? I can understand why you'd like to see Zappa competing, we all would, but I can also see why AC is keeping it under wraps until it's release. > >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. Only in heaven will we see all the programs competing in every tournament, Uri. Only in heaven! :) > >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'm sure that Zappa would be in WBEC if it wasn't being prepared as a commercial product, and a first-time commercial product for AC. > >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. Money isn't the issue, I believe, in Zappa competing or not competing in a tournament, right now. Time is. > >> >>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. I honestly can't imagine having a tester running my program in a large tournament, while I am trying to put the finishing touches on the program for it's initial commercial release. That's nothing but trouble. Let's say Zappa scored 50 elo points ahead of chessX. Now the commercial Zappa is released and it scores 40 elo points more than chessX, or 60 elo points more than chessX. Either way, everyone wonders why? What did AC do, "it's not like the beta...". Either way, AC and Zappa lose credibility. When I'm playing chess, the best thing for me to do is to mentally "sit on my hands" (be patient, and don't make any rash moves). Sometimes, as consumers, I think that's the best advice, as well. If you want first class oats or hay, you have to be patient and wait for it to grow in the fields, first. If you can't wait, you may have to settle for the oats or hay that have already passed through some horse, if you know what I mean. <grin> Dave
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.