Author: Albert Silver
Date: 08:00:45 06/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2000 at 23:45:33, Hans Gerber wrote:
>On June 12, 2000 at 17:33:57, Joachim Denzler wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>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
>
>
>Outside the marketing reality perhaps.
>
>In the meantime I did install the program.
>
>First observations.
>
>1. The display looks very inviting. Similarities with the WIN version of GENIUS
>are obvious.
>
>2. I could not find a cconcrete description of the engine.
>
>3. The help file with F1 is opening as a HTML.
>
>4. What a surprise! Right on the first page you can see a photo of Stefan
>Meyer-Kahlen with his wife Anna, both holding a trophy in their hands.
>
>5. The text is not exactly telling that you have SHREDDER on your PC. This
>"missing link" is mentioned but not openly outspoken.
>
>6. Let me describe the tricky method. Above of the page you read "World
>Champion". Then the photo. Then the text. Again Stefan Meyer-Kahlen is mentioned
>who has won the championship in June 1999 with his computerprogram SHREDDER.
>There you have it. So, if you have here the 'World Champion', it is clear that
>you "have" SHREDDER, since SHREDDER became World Champion in 1999.
>
>In reality you do not have SHREDDER, the one of Paderborn, because e.g. the
>endgame CDs are not included. Still you can read that you hold in your hands the
>winning program that ran on a "normal" PIII with 550 MHz. The method is the same
>as above. If you are the owner of such a PC and you did install SHREDDER, excuse
>me, the WORLD CHAMPION of course, then you play with the winning program of the
>last championship.
>
>In reality you do not play with that program because of the missing endgames.
>
>
>Conclusion
>
>The more the version of the here presented program differs from the "version"
>(must be version 4) at Paderborn 1999, the more the text (on the box, on the CD
>and in the files of the program) does not tell you the truth about itself.
As I recall, Shredder 4 is not what won Paderborn in 1999, but a version
somewhere in between Shredder 3 and Shredder 4. The fact that Shredder CAN make
use of the endgame CDs does not mean that the CDs are a part of the
engine/program IMO. Yes, they come with the more expensive Shredder 4 package,
but I consider that as a bonus, and not an inherent part of Shredder itself. My
curiousity is to how far or close the engine is to Shredder 4, and how much it
differs by. As I said earlier, though I have never seen anyone mention it here
or in RGCC back when, I have seen an official boxed version of Genius 3.5 making
claims to being an improved version of the engine that took down Kasparov in
London. Bastard versions aren't unheard of, and if the engine is indeed the same
as the one that won Paderborn (which is why I suggested testing it alongside
Shredder 3 and 4 in order to compare), you got a heck of a deal for $7. This
does bring back your other question as to whether it was normal to see a program
that was World Champion only a year ago for such a paltry sum, but I wouldn't
consider there to be any false advertising involved.
Albert Silver
P.S. I remember the Deep Blue discussion quite well, and I don't remember you as
being the one to keep to the big picture whereas others remained glued to
details. There was a long series of posts in which your only concern was whether
Kasparov had indeed made his accusations right after the second game or after. I
dropped the thread because I couldn't see what difference it made as it was
already clear he had made his statements by the third game. In any case, it was
clear that Kasparov was the one who had started the mud-slinging.
>
>Question again, who is to believe? The Stefan Meyer-Kahlen of CCC or the Stefan
>Meyer-Kahlen as one of the notified responsibles for the mentioned product?
>
>Important note. The whole theme does not go about really big money. The point is
>the importance of a certain style, a hopefully scientific attitude as a
>programmer and the moral of people in the chess business.
>
>
>
>Hans Gerber
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.