Author: Don Prohaska
Date: 15:29:15 06/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
You're right, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Claims are made about "World championship titles" that are meant to be misleading. So is the rating to some extent. It is the beginner in chess computing that may at first become confused, but later become a bit wiser. But all chess computing beginners are not money bags. They may have a family to support and buying a chess program is a luxery. If you read the rgcc very often you will find some very confused if not naive posters. We all know that it is buyer beware. But I am speaking of honesty. How honest must one be when selling a product? Not absolutly honest. But I've been lucky, dealing with Rebel, Chessbase, ICD, and a few others. Yes, I've also been burnt. And my family isn't too happy with my spending. Oh, if I just had the money I spent on crap so I could buy some of that good stuff out there!!! On June 05, 1998 at 15:47:24, Don Dailey wrote: >On June 05, 1998 at 13:10:12, Don Prohaska wrote: > >>Ah, yes, phoney claims to make a sale. But, take a look at what computer >>companies do with ratings today. Perhaps 80 percent of the people that >>would buy a chess program have a P\90 or less (I don't know this as a >>fact). So Rebel might rate highest on a P\90, but Socko blows Rebel away >>on its P3\650. The testers claim Socko is tops. I buy Socko to use with >>my P\70 and my brother using an old 486 blows me away with his Rebel. >>Now, computer companies know that the general population can't stay up >>with the latest compter (regardless of what KK thinks :}}} ) Isn't that >>the same as claiming ratings the most likely buyer will never see? A >>programmer will always want to test his product against the competition >>using the best and latest hardware. And if he does well, he'll brag. And >>he'll advertise! Nothing wrong with that. We know that some companies >>lie, exagerate, cheat, etc, to sell a product. There are at least two >>large software companies that sell chess software that are full of real >>bugs, and I hear very little complaint. Some companies with fine >>products will hawk there products and perhaps exagerate, like calling >>there product the "Absolute World Champion" when no one really knows >>what that means. Except the beginner who must learn the hardway. >> >>I hope this sounds the way I meant it to. > >As long as the hardware is clearly and prominently specified, this >is not a problem, the public has to be trusted to make some decisions >correctly. When I compare two programs I take these factors into >consideration and I think most others do to. If I see Rebel on top >with a Pentium 500 MHZ screamer I will not compare it to MCHESS >running on a 386. (This is an example, not based on anything I >actually saw, so no flames please.) > >I think it's basically that simple! If a new rating organization >comes to be, I only ask that every detail is clearly published >so that we can make our own rational decisions. Even if the >methodology is screwed up (like not counting time forfeits) having >complete documenation and knowing this will give us all the data >we need to draw our own conclusions. > >- Don
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.