Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 18:09:44 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 20:44:38, Thorsten Czub wrote: >but isn't such a feature list very boring ? you can publish or print the >handbook for those things, make the handbook public in internet, but this >is not what i do expect from a review. That depends on what you decide is important for you (the consumer) to know about, ie. database support, analysis features, book editing, configurablility and if you're artistically inclined also something about the layout. I wouldn't spend too much time on that myself. Boards in 3D doesn't impress me in general. >how do you know if somebody is independant ? >how do you decide this ? >which evidence makes you decide: he is independant ? >this interests me. That can be quite easy. If you make a review about the analysis function of Rebel Tiger II (I assume it has one) the impression would be subjective when it comes to usability and evaluation. An independent reviewer would explain what he likes and dislikes about that function and why. If the why's are bogus or if the flaws of the program are skipped then there's reason to believe that the reviewer has an agenda. A review should contain both parts IMHO. An objective and relatively thorough examination of features (plus and minus) and a subjective impression on how they operate according to the reviewer. Most of the reviews at the Rebel site only contain the latter part. But this time it's only my opinion, so everyone can do what they please. I'm only explaining how I would do it. Now it's close to bedtime I think or maybe breakfast. Mogens.
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.