Author: Amir Ban
Date: 15:49:05 09/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2005 at 17:37:19, Mig Greengard wrote: >Instead of being snide and proving my point about pointless and unfounded >bashing, perhaps you could explain exactly what ChessBase, a for-profit company, >has to gain by continuing to invest resources in winning 11-round tournaments >against other programs. Why is it bullshit for a company to move into something >more profitable, like interface design and making an engine that is a more >useful training tool for amateurs? What would they have gained had Fritz 9 >entered and won with a Fischerian score of 11/11? They would put a nice story >bragging about it up on their site, put "2005 world champion!" on the box, and >sold three more copies than they otherwise would have. > >Of course the rise of so many strong programs has something to do with this; the >engine market has become commoditized to the point where there is little profit >left in competing. Note the word "profit." When there were two or three top >engines it made sense to tout their power. When Junior and Shredder did so well, >ChessBase brought them in because having the top engines was important. But when >there are five or ten that all play at a similar level, it is pointless to keep >running such races. It requires massive amounts of work to stay near the top and >you get very little in return, hence my comment about diminishing returns. This >does not require a translation unless you don't speak English. > >ChessBase (for which I do not speak) is obviously interested in maintaining >engine excellence. There is a nice supply of new engines that they can >cherry-pick when they like. This is good for everyone. They may well be >interested in a deal with Zappa or Fruit. Is having seven programs better than >five? What about 10? It's a marketing decision. Do you dump a known brand like >Junior because it finished fifth this year? Do you go running after every new >hot program without knowing if the programmer can deliver on time and continue >the project? > >Crafty has been plenty strong enough for years to substitute for Fritz or >Shredder for anyone who's not an international master. Last I checked it was >still free, even distributed by ChessBase, and it hasn't put the guys in Hamburg >out of business. 50 or 100 Elo points is not the relevant difference now that >all the programs are over 2500. In my other Daily Dirt comments I compared all >this "ass kicking" hot air to people who want to buy a car because it has a >higher top speed than another. You think 2780 is so much better than 2765 that >you fail to realize this puts you in the sub-1% of the market for ChessBase >products. Do you think the hordes of people who buy ChessMaster are worried >about where it is on some obscure rating list? > >If ChessBase can have it both ways, I'm sure they gladly will. If you win, you >brag, if you don't win, you don't brag. </obvious> But if it comes down to >choosing between another few dozen rating points and GUI, features, training >utility, and fun, it's not much of a choice if you have to sell products to pay >the rent. That's also an interesting direction, a profitable direction, and with >the engine field so glutted and balanced, (and with Hydra on the scene), the >logical direction. This is terribly disingenious. I can't believe that Chessbase actually subscribe to this, as you suggest. Of course playing strength is of utmost importance, more than any other measure of a chess program. This is obvious from the professional and academic point of view, since if it is true that chess programs play better than humans (needs proof IMO), then the appearance of a stronger program brings us ever closer to the holy grail of playing perfect chess. "A dozen rating points" which you disdain sounds to me quite a lot if its at a level that the world of chess has never seen before. You are taking a most blase attitude to what after all has been the effort of hundreds or thousands over the past half century, and the reason that this field, and this forum exists. All this is also commercially true when we are discussing a company such as Chessbase who serves the chess professionals and enthusiasts, and as part of their line of business take care to be associated with the likes of Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand. Are you suggesting that chess professionals who buy Chessbase engines don't care if Chessbase provides them with an engine 50 points stronger, so that it gives them an instant correct analysis of many positions where former generation engines were useless ? As for "GUI, features" etc. being more important, give us a break. As for the implied suggestion in your reasoning, that significant strength improvement in computer chess is not equivalent to improvement in chess proper, give us another break. This throws us a decade back to the somewhat primitive suggestions by some that the apparent great advances and achievements of engines then meant nothing: They are not GM strength, some mythical 2000 player can beat them any time, last night on ICC this and that happened, etc. etc. Luckily for us, we don't have to endure these myths any longer as events have forced these people into silence. Amir
This page took 0.01 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.