Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Answer of Chess Master Team about Chess Master 7000

Author: Arturo Ochoa

Date: 19:07:38 06/16/00

Go up one level in this thread


On June 16, 2000 at 16:42:44, Christopher R. Dorr wrote:

Hello, Chris.

>I do understand your frustration, but I think it's important to remember that
>CM7000 is a mass-market program; 99.99% of their customers don't care about the
>hash table issue. On a modern machine, this is perhaps the difference between a
>USCF 2550 level and a USCF 2535 level. For the vast majority of users, it makes
>no difference. At blitz time controls, which is what the vast majority plays
>most of their games at, this would make even less difference.
>

I regret it, but I think you haven't understood me. And it isn't any
frustration, it is only  I don't agree with this attitude about a product that I
always considered very professional from the beginners until the most expert
levels.

Neither, I am in this vast majority, since my orientation isn't the Chess
Computer Matches. I use mainly chess programs for training me. When I carry out
tests, they aren't to get statistical results purely. These kind of results
don't indicate me anything of the quality level of a chess program. When I carry
out tests on some program, they are guided rather to its style and chess level.
It has much value for me, because in this process I am increasing my game level.

So, accepting it or not, the Hash Tables increases the chess programs game level
notably. The technical reasons have already been widely explained by the experts
in chess programs.  I won't detail these reasons again.

>To fix this would probably require several dozen hours of coding, testing, and
>distributing. Let's say 50 hours of developer/tester time. At $40 an hour, this
>is $2000 to fix a bug that makes virtually no difference in strength, and affets

I also understand the problem of the cost, because, besides working for a
company in which I must budget continually the outsourcing services, I belong to
the technological area where the products are extremely revised, proven, tested
and corrected under the potential users' guides before launching. The objective
is to launch products with the minimum quantity of defects and, in in this case
of the chess programs, with the minimum of bugs.

More than spending a lot of money in correcting such defects, you should foresee
the execution of a software quality control intensive Phase with the potential
user's guide of the all niches of your market.

If I refer to the software metrics quality, it is I have worked in this area for
several years. So, I don't consider myself unaware to this area.

Working an area, whose service should be on-line 24 hours x 7 days, the 365 days
of the year, you can infer my job is concerning to an Extranet of diverse
Services. The new Services are proven thoroughly so much by the established
clients as the potentials ones.

>a *very* few customers. Additionally, it pulls a developer away from his/her
>work on the next version. I wouldn't fix it either.
>
>The 'professional' programs sell 90% of their programs to afficionados who *do*
>care about such things. Thus they are much more likely to fix these problems, as
>they directly impact their bottom line. I think the response of the CM7000 team
>is both reasonable and to be expected.

I think it is so important the work of all the afficionados, as much for this
kind of reports as for some question that they can have. I'm clear I'm not in
the range of the GMasters, but I am above of the  National Master's level. I
don't know what is the range you use to consider a chess player like a
"afficionado". For example, many Gmasters could be considers great afficionados.

If the interest was to launch a ChessMaster release, I think it was better to
wait for the ChessMaster 8000 launching. Most of people are using the
ChessMaster 6000, so which was the real problem of launching a version with all
the improvements expected by the public? I think your position is not reasonable
and prospective.

It is only my opinion. It is on your behalf, to consider if my arguments are so
disheveled for you to be considered minimumly logical.

>
>Chris





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.