Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:17:12 11/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2000 at 05:43:55, pavel wrote: >On November 15, 2000 at 05:01:34, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On November 15, 2000 at 02:03:39, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>>I'm concerned that people can believe that the published reviews are >>>>advertisements, because that's not what they are. >>>> >>>>Ed, it's up to you to decide, but I would personally offer Mogens to write a >>>>review of the Rebel 11 CD, and I would promiss to publish it on the Rebel site >>>>and on CCC. >>>> >>>>That would of course imply to send to Mogens the product for free, but I guess >>>>this wouldn't bias Mogens' review. >>>> >>>>I do believe Mogens tries to stay objective. Sometimes he does not manage, but >>>>generally he is rather objective. >>>> >>>>I'm sure that because he is a rather objective guy, he would not write a >>>>negative review of the Rebel 11 product. By letting Mogens write a review we >>>>take a risk, but anyway we are taking this kind of risk everyday. >>>> >>>>By letting the beta testers express themselves during the beta period we have >>>>taken a risk that no other chess software publisher dares to take. >>>> >>>>As soon as we publish our chess programs, we take the risk that they get beaten >>>>by other programs, the risk that people don't like the way they look, the risk >>>>that people criticize it in an unfair way, and so on... >>>> >>>>I don't think Mogens would write an unfair review. So why couldn't we ask him to >>>>write a review and publish it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>> >>>:-) >>> >>>I am in agreement. Mogens, how about it? >> >>It's a very nice suggestion and I'm very tempted to accept. The problem is that >>it would look like I got rewarded for commenting on an issue where I only stated >>my opinion about the definition of the word "review". Someone might pick up on >>this and repeat it in order to be offered this kind of bonus. That would be >>rather unfortunate. >> >>Besides, reviewing a product in detail without any prior experience whatsoever >>would be very timeconsuming. And I don't have the time despite my activities >>here :o). Given these circumstances I must decline reviewing your program. I >>suggest asking someone who's not been involved in this thread and in testing for >>Rebel. >> >>Regards, >>Mogens > > >how about Sarah or Enrique? >I think they are both kinda a blunt, and Likes to be objective. >Enrique has more experience then most people. >Blass Uri might be a nice consideration, unless he want to get paid for it ;) It is a bad idea to pay me because people will claim that I am not objective. I can give like and dislike list but I did not try to use most of the options in Rebel-tiger because I did not buy it in order to write a review. I like the fact that I have strong engines in order to analyze my correspondence games. I like the fact that it is possible to tell the computer moves that it will not analyze. I do not like the fact that it does significant preprocessing and I already posted an example when the difference in the evaluation after 2 plies was close to 1 pawn and not because of deeper search. I do not like the fact that it is impossible to do engine-engine games between Tiger13 and Gambittiger. I do not like the fact that it is so easy to get Rebel or Tiger out of book(I have a correspondence game and my opponent started 1.g3 d5 2.f4 and my engines are out of book. 1...d5 is the only move in tiger's opening book and it means that it will be easy to prepare a killer line against tiger for the ssdf games. You only need to start with 1.g3 d5 2.f4 and find a way to win tiger after these moves. I hope that Jeroen will improve his book to avoid this problem. Uri
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.