Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 03:05:26 03/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2001 at 04:27:52, Andreas Schwartmann wrote: >So you think ChessBase's products are "unfair"? Elaborate on this, please. i do not think e.g. that fritz5.32 and fritz6 was a big difference and was worth the money. also i don't see where deep fritz makes much more sense to buy in relation to fritz6 when you don't have a multi-cpu system. it was ok to write in css: if you don't have a multi-cpu system, don't buy deep fritz. but it was NOT ok to tell the people in forums (CCC, CSS, GAMBIT elsewhere) that deep fritz is a MUST and that deep fritz is very much stronger than fritz6a. it isn't. no matter what irazoqui or ssdf wants to suggest to us. its not worth the money IMO. i do not think this is fair. shredder4 was a fair product, although it was twice as expensive as chessbase-programs. shredder5 was also fair IMO although it was again twice as expensive. its not the price that decides IMO about the fairness. its the question if you get what you expected. when people make a hype about a product, and it does notm have the strength the people claim, than something is wrong. rebel-tiger11 and gambit-tiger1 and rebel-century3, known as rebel-11 was a fair product. i don't think that hiarcs as a chessbase engine is a big thing. hiarcs itself is a good product, the user interface helps a little, but overall i think mark would have been better to spare his work and concentrate on making hiarcs better instead of bringing out a new chessbase engine. it is unfair that chessbase misuses computerschach and spiele and their forum for spreading chessbase propaganda. if the forum would be named: chessbase forum, and the magazine would be named: chessbase magazine, it would be fair. then the writers would be named as writers for chessbase and not as writers for computerschach and spiele. this would be fair. in germany you have to declare news and advertising. you are not allowed to advertise and to call it as journalism when it is in fact advertising ! computerschach and spiele, is not declaring the advertisments and the journalistic-parts accurate. they mix it. they hide advertising and suggest it is journalism. it isnt. thats not fair. and it is not legal. if you have an ad, there must be a sign: "advertisment / anzeige" on this page. most articles in computerschach and spiele are not reviews but advertisments. the authors get paid to write nice things about the product. thats not information but desinformation. unfair competition to misuse this method. the update policy of chessbase is unfair. people who have bought the product have problems to get updates, although they have legally bought the product. the service when programming bugs or problems occur is weak. people don't get the support they would need to have a working program. >Hey, so now we have at least ONE thing we can agree upon. thank you. maybe we have the same point of view concerning the off-topic weapon stuff, because we have been both educated in european-cultural background. and maybe the others have different educational system and different cultural background and therefore think different. it's ok for me that they think different. but i don't wanna have their society copied here. we have to learn that internet makes it possible for us to exchange us about computerchess, or other topics, but that we still come from different background and have different cultural roots. this is deep in our hearts. we cannot surpress it or oversee it.
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.