Author: Gordon Rattray
Date: 21:58:25 12/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
Gian-Carlo, I understand the point that you are making. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. However, the problem is that end-users don't always know what the design decisions were. They cannot be blamed for assuming that analysis lines can be relied upon like in previous versions, i.e. with a gradual decline in thoroughness as the line deepens - no sudden and shallow blunders. My issue with this is that the programmer is trying to do too much. Based on your explanation, they want to gain their "10%" performance increase *without* taking away the ability to display analysis lines. So, they just decide to show the lines anyway and therefore "hide" the necessary compromise. Where is it documented? It isn't. They don't want to highlight that the ability to display valuable analysis has been impacted in order to gain performance. The online help states that the engine window shows "the best continuation Fritz has found so far". So maybe the "bug" is in the documentation (regarded as part of the software). Don't blame users for reading the documentation and having expectations based upon it. Your posting isn't included in the online help, unfortunately. ;-) By all means, make design decisions. But if the downside of a decision is "kept quiet", yes, people are entitled to think that it is a bug. Gordon
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.