Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 20:41:10 06/04/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 1998 at 21:33:49, Steven Schwartz wrote: >On June 04, 1998 at 18:29:13, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>I wish folks would use the titles they win, without embellishing them, >>and I wish they would state they year that they win them, unless they >>won them this year. >> >>The most recent example is the inside last page of the USCF magazine, >>"Chess Life". >> >>This is a Virtual Chess 64 ad that claims that the program was "1996 & >>1997 world microcomputer chess champion". >> >>Let's say that you participate in a sport, and that you are good enough >>to win a world championship title. Then you do the same thing the next >>year. What does this imply about you and about your competition? It >>implies that there is a gap between you and the competition. >> >>So the ad leaves the reader with the idea that Virtual Chess is better >>than the competition. >> >>But the problem here is that Virtual Chess was not the "world >>microcomputer chess champion" in either of those years. >> >>The 1996 world microcomputer chess champion was Shredder, and the 1997 >>world microcomputer chess champion was Junior. >> >>The reason that they can say "champion" is that there was a title given >>in both of those years to the highest finishing *professional* chess >>program, this was the "world professional microcomputer chess champion". >> This is an extremely important distinction. >> >>In 1997 the highest finishing professional program was Virtual Chess, >>who finished second overall, and in 1996 it was also Virtual Chess, who >>finished in a tie for 5th through 7th. Fritz was 7th on tie break >>points, there was a playoff, and Virtual Chess won. >> >>But the ad does not say "world professional microcomputer chess >>champion" in one very prominent place, it says "world microcomputer >>chess champion". This is misleading, and I have to believe damaging to >>those who really won these titles in those years, and damaging to others >>who have programs that are in the same league with Virtual Chess, and in >>fact may have finished higher than Virtual Chess in at least one of >>these tournaments. >> >>I ask that people who win titles please make use of the titles >>responsibly and accurately. Those who have won less restrictive titles >>do not need to have their reputation eroded by others who conveniently >>forget to insert the appropriate restrictive adjective. >> >>bruce > >Capitalism and greed often go hand in hand. I have always had >the philosophy that exaggerated ratings are for companies that >have short-term goals. > >We have always known that to exaggerate a rating will, perhaps, >gain an immediate customer, but he will not be back a second time. >And what kind of ratings can you give to product after 20 years >of exaggeration? Perhaps Chessmaster 5500 actually stands for >its rating :-) > >We were sued in 1985 by Fidelity for 1.5 million dollars because >when the Sensory Challenger 9 was introduced Fidelity was screaming >from the rooftops that it played over 2000 rated chess (it cost >under $200). We did our own testing and realized that it was, >perhaps, between 1700 and 1800. > >So we ran a series of full page ads in Chess Life proclaining that >the SC9 was guaranteed to play "Over 1700". This was still >quite amazing in light of the fact that nothing selling for >that little had ever played that well before. But Fidelity was >greedy; they wanted it all. Consequently, Fidelity sued us almost >immediately claiming that our ad lost them over $1,000,000 in sales. > >The case went to trial 5 years later and it lasted 3 1/2 weeks. >Fortunately, we were covered by insurance because our attorney >bill was $700,000 (that is NOT a misprint). > >As the jury was walking back into the room after a total of >45 minutes of deliberation, one of the jurors turned >to me, smiled, and gave me a thumbs-up. The case was such a farse >that the jury saw right through it. > >Fidelity did not care so much about the long term ill effects of >rating exaggeration. They are no longer. >- Steve Perhaps Fidelity knew they would lose the case but in doing so would cause your firm irreparable harm from having to defend it. I am sure that your attorney insurance went up. So who wins here? The lawyers and judges and court reporters and court stenographers feeding off society's trough. Every legal case boosts employment for the above if the case goes to trial. The fact that your case wasn't thrown out beforehand leads to a thought that judges and lwayers are in on a conspricy to inflate the number of court cases thus keeping all the above principles employed. There are 2 ways to oblivion. The fast way by revolution which leads to Robespierre forms of government and the slow way via the legal system. It seems that the U.S. is definitely well on its way to oblivion via the 2nd method. Because the law societies of Canada do not allow plaintiffs to make a % deal with their lawyers, Canada does not have the ridiculous number of lawsuits that the U.S. has. I don't know why this is the case as it certainly limits employment opportunities for lawyers in Canada. Perhaps there is a gentleman's agreement between the powers that run the "STAR CHAMBER" in Canada. The U.S. society however is certainly on the legal road to HELL.
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.