Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 03:18:03 09/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2005 at 18:49:05, Amir Ban wrote: >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 I thing Chessbase generally understands that their market is serious chess players who want strong engines. It's just that it doesn't hurt to make statements like "we are after features/humanlike play/blah blah rather than strength". You might sell to a few more clueless customers, and you won't lose anybody. The engine strength speaks for itself. Vas
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.