Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 15:02:28 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 16:29:17, Ed Schröder wrote: >I don't think that's fair to the beta-testers. They (just like you) are >computer chess enthousiatics with a long history of knowledge on ALL >programs. I am sure you would write a positive review on a program if >you like it. That's probably true. I didn't claim that I would react differently or do better if placed in a similar position. But if Gambit Soft asked me to make a review of Gandalf I would say no, because chances are that I might not be entirely objective. I would rather answer specific questions instead. >That's about all there is to say about it because that's >the way it goes since Rebel8 times. That's okay with me but you asked me what I implied. Basically, it's the "review" title I dislike. By my understanding a review is an objective analysis of a given product, listing and estimating strengths and weaknesses, by an independent individual. If it's from a person within the team then it's "just" a personal opinion or impression, however objective that person might attempt to be. In my opinion it's enevitable that an internal reviewer becomes attached to the product in some way, making the estimation subjective. Mogens.
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.