Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 22:01:48 03/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2001 at 20:15:21, Mike S. wrote: >But I'm sure you are aware of all that anyway. > >Regards, >M.Scheidl how many championships were won by mark after he sold his engine to chessbase? i think when a company takes over another, or buys their products, this does not obviously mean that this is good for the product. i don't believe that e.g. when mercedes benz buys chrysler or makes a fusion with them, that this is automatically good for chrysler. i see many amateurs in the scene. and i think they work with their hearts and they like the fair competition. a game of chess e.g. is a fair competition. but capitalism isn't. capitalism leads to corrupt politicians and monopols. microsoft e.g. is an example for unfair competition. the products are a pain in the ass, and the only reason we buy them is because we have no alternative (anymore). if we would have an alternative, we would all change to this one. hiarcs was dead in the moment it was sold as chessbase engine too. nobody bought the dos version anymore, because the user interface was not that nice. they stopped making progress. and all we have is a chessbase engine hiarcs, together with a stopped development. under chessbase hiarcs won no championship. how could it. alone he won against strong competitors. i do not believe in the sake of monopols. i want to see a fair competition. and variance. many programs. many alternatives. and interesting inventions. i would be against other monopols too. if ed or marty hirsch or mark uniacke would have a monopol, or chris whittington, i would be against them too. i think matthias wuellenweber himself is against monopols. and likes fair competition.
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.