Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 08:12:25 10/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 2005 at 09:29:29, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 12, 2005 at 09:01:46, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On October 12, 2005 at 08:58:09, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On October 12, 2005 at 08:14:16, robert flesher wrote: >>> >>>>It also lost against default 14-6, however I will give it a 100 game match to >>>>make sure. Although it seems that this version is even more aggressive compared >>>>to the defaul and this is exactly what Fruit 2.2 is exploiting. >>> >>>Maybe the problem is one computer only. >>> >>>Using 2 computers after 42 games CE 9g is leading 21.5 to 20.5 (at 15 minuts >>>each on 2 AMD 3000+ with 256Mega RAM) so I do not understand your results. >>> >>>Sandro >> >>Leading against Shredder 9...I do not test against Fruit 2.2 because I do not >>own it due to the hated protection used. >> >>Some people reported a clear win against Fruit 2.2 so maybe it is a matter of >>openings... >> >>Sandro > >Note that initially I thought that the copy protection of fruit is a good idea >but I changed my mind about it after reading responses of people. > >It is possible that even piracy without that copy protection may be productive >for Fabien. > >Explanation: > >option 1:copy protection similiar to shredder >A buy the program and share the program with B,C,D,E when everybody payed only >1/5 of the price. > >Fabien earns 35$ >A,B,C,D,E pay 7$ In reality B share it with BB,BC,BD,BE; BB share it with BBB,BBC,BBD,BBE; etc. >option 2:copy protection based on hardwate > >A does not buy fruit because it is too expensive and same for B,C,D,E >Fabien earns nothing. Would not concern me at all. The great thing is B,C,D,E don´t get it for free. A copyprotection based on hardware seems necessary today for such a niche market product. Especially since customers are private only. Michael >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.