Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 13:45:56 12/20/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 1997 at 15:36:58, Don Prohaska wrote: >On December 20, 1997 at 13:22:07, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi all: >>I am not just a self appointed chess computers journalist. I am a real >>one, a guy that works in TV, magazines, papers and so on in my country. >>And If I can say it, a very reputed one, specially as a columnist. So, I >>think I know something about what is due to journalistic pressure to be >>the first to put the new and what is due to others considerations. There >>is not a general rule about this. It depends totally of circunstances. >>To put it clear with an extreme example, in case of war you are not >>going to publish anything that hurts your country even if dping so you >>get a great new strike. Also, you should be a miserable to publish >>something just to be the first to do so if that publication hurts >>severely the reputation of an inocent people and for nothing of >>importance.And, on the contrary, you would be a very bad journalist and >>even a bad citizen if you does not publish something of importante to >>your country or the world just because you have a friendship with a guy >>or two. >>Then, without general rules you must use specific criteria and common >>sense and in this case, in the case of KK publication about Ed failure >>to protect his rights, I think KK is wrong -and so Chris- when he >>claims a kind of jourmalistic obligation to do something that was >>clearly damaging a respected member of this community. What benefice are >>we going to get as chess consummers if Ed goes bankrupt? What is the >>sense suddenly to play the rol as a journalist here, when in a way or >>another we know all each others as consummers, posters, programmers or >>in any other qualification? We are primarely a club, don't we?, and not >>a general, anonimous community that needs to be informed thought >>journalists. Are we friends or not? If not, at least we have something >>in common that is the advance of this field; we are interested not only >>as programmer that earns a life with this, as Ed, but as customers that >>wants to get better, nicer programs in the future. I cannot understand >>what I would be winning if I get Decade 2,0 with rebel 9 and then Ed >>goes baknrupt and Rebel 10 never will appear. Is my interest -is our >>interest- to ensure that any programmer gets enough money to stay in his >>business. That's the reason reasonable people does not copy ilegally >>even if they can. I prefer to pay a fee, to purchase and so to ensure >>support, better versions, etc. >>All this does not mean that if a program seems badly designed or >>marketed -as i have posted about the DOS obstinacy of MCP7 father- you >>will not say a word: I did, as maybe you recall, but there is a great >>difference between to be an objetive or at least sincere critic of a >>product and to say somnnething that at the same time is not necesary and >>will produce an extreme damage. Journalism, to be the first to say >>something, is no so important to legitimate anything. You must pondere >>the weight of each thing in order not to do unnecesary damage, a damage >>without compensation for anyone. In the case of MCP7 DOS oobstinacy, I >>did not damage severely nobody; surely was sold and is being sold well >>and if some damage was done, is justified in order to put in the table >>the issue of the platform that people wants now. If I had believed that >>for any reason my articles about that issue were capable of putting >>Marty out of business, I had silence my pen, for sure. Is that a >>"violation" of journalistic ethics or something? No, is just commons >>sense, not to be a freak, not to be a fundamentalist. > >I don't like getting involved at all, but when I read stuff from a guy >who said that the Computer Chess Reports does not censor its stuff when >it does and he either must know it or is not the great newspaper man he >claims, then I would like to ask a question. Did you contact MCP7 to >find out what the problem was before you dumped on his program in more >than one place? CCR does not censor at all or clearly my article about MCP7 had not been published just in Christmas season. Respect to MCP7 contact, of course I tried, but I did not get an "instant" answer at all. Besides, Don, you are confusing things because I did not dump MCP7 "in more than one place". What I said was that the DOS platform was a pain in the ass and that I had been uncapable of launching the program. How could a program be dumped if it is not launched at all? Not even me, "a great journalist" as you unneccesarily distort sarcastically my quotation about my reputation, can perform that miracle. I dumped DOS OS, no MCP7. What is more, later, when I got a method to launch MCP7 before the first email from MCP7 people arrived to me, I wrote a new aticle about this time MCP7 and for the same CCR where I talked of DOS obstinacy. This new one has not been published yet for reasons that escape my hands, but in it you will see sooner or later that MCP7 is not dumped by me at all, even if his platform does not like me very much. Several times I have had problems (so I thought) with >MCP and contacted Marty. He replied almost instantly and resolved the >problem. That is more than I can say about other programs that you have >hyped. KK made a mistake in my opinion. He has done a lot for for >computer chess. Give him a pass. I know that, I like KK and I give to him all the passes he wants, but that does not means that I cannot say he has committed a mistake , as you also recognizes, AND that the mistake is to assume a journalistic quality that is out of place in a place like this. With respect to the many programs I have "hyped", I have done so when I have been convinced that they were worthy of it. Sorry ifyou does not accord with my judgments. The very day I have problems with them I will say at once. And yeah, if I were Ed I would be >pissed at him. But what KK had said about Decade I had heard at least 24 >hours before he brought it up. The point is not if KK got or not a great new, but the fact he petexted journalism as the reason to say something capable of damage. And the fact that Ed committed the first mistake does not legitimate a second one of a "journalist" capable of sinking him deeper. That is, not what I say, to throw stones. I also blame other for my mistakes! Throw >stones!
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.