Author: Joachim Denzler
Date: 14:33:57 06/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
> > >This was not the point. Remember that the winning version in 1999 was something >above version 3. So I understand that it is version 4. > >But this is neither the question. the exact number of the version was not the >main point for my question. The main question was why a Champion (of June 1999!) >is sold for 7 US$. > >Then Meyer-Kahlen came and confirmed that it is not closely one of the actual >versions. For me this is a very important statement. Perhaps it was too >difficult to understand. The 7- dollar- program is presented as the Championship >version (!) of the program by S. M.-K.. That is the point. No matter if you >think it's not 3 or M.-K. confirms it is not one of the (good) complete >versions, M.-K. did not play with a slim version of his program to win the >championship. I followed this discussion and was first puzzled by the price of the program, then more puzzled by the answer of Mr. Mayer-Kahlen, and most puzzled by the description of the box that looks pretty much like the box I got as I bought Shredder 4 from ICD. Since I am one of the nox-experts that have been mentioned below it would be very difficult for me to decide whether or not I got the true version 4 of Shredder for the 100$, or something like a Shredder 3.x version (at least I have the endgame CD's, and much more. "This should be enough for 100$. Do you really expect to have also Shredder 4 in it?" - just kidding). If there is really made no clear distinction between the different version of a program this would be one reason not to buy this program any longer. How can I make sure that I do not get an older version that has been on stock for a while? > >The superficiality of such discussions is telling. My last debate was about the >Deep Blue match and who was to blame for the bad climate between the two >parties. If you isolate parts of a question you might succeed in finding quick >answers but you can not find the truth. In a way the impossibility to find the >truth allows a strong verdict against a certain party. If you are familiar with >science and its reasoning this is all but totally new information. > >In our actual debate the point is that Stefan Meyer-Kahlen is responsible (since >his name is figuring on the box and CD with the name of hcc) for a situation >where his "championship (!) version" is sold for 7 dollars and he confirms >without hesitation that the program is (of course) _not_ one of the complete >good versions... In science we call it a contradiction. In science you can not >simply produce contradictions without hurting your good name. Now the selling of This is exactly the problem that I also have right now! Perhaps the next step would be that we read here: "You have to buy Shredder directly from Millenium 2000 - do you really expect to get the latest version from ICD". Again, this is of course overdrawn ;-) >a product is not science at all, but it still throws a bad light on you if you >try to hide your responsibility for a market strategy (to omit to qualify the >technique with the justified verdict) and run away with the money. > >Must I repeat that it is written on the box that this is the championship >version that was playing on a "normal" PC? > >Of course the expert knows that this can not be true because all the endgame CDs >are not in the box. Of course this, of course that. > > >Hans Gerber > > In this sense I fully agree with Hans Gerber and would like to see a more honest marketing strategy of Millenium (perhaps I live outside reality?!) Joachim Denzler
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.