Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:00:32 12/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2001 at 08:38:56, Mike Hood wrote: >On December 20, 2001 at 06:54:21, Georg Langrath wrote: > >>The death of computerchess. >> >>In older days every tablechess was a piece of art. You talked about the design >>and features as much as strength. Later came PC. Now you could talk about design >>and features of interfaces instead beside strength. >>Nowadays it seems as interfaces and new features are dying. Look at Fritz 7. It >>looks like Fritz 6 if I haven’t misunderstood. It has one big development, and >>that is communicating possibilities via Internet. >>And Century 4. I have it. Although I like the interface it is the same as in >>Century 3 in every detail. And it has some small new features. >>That means that the important thing about buying new PC-chess nowadays is that >>it perhaps is a little stronger. Often not more than as best 50 ELO. >>I am not a strong chessplayer, but strength isn’t a problem for most of us >>today. All programs are more than strong enough. Strength can be of importance >>in analyze, but for few of us that important, that you are willing to spend 60$ >>for an uncertain increase of perhaps 20 to 50 points. >>And ordinary people are less interested in strength than those in CCC. >>Perhaps there isn’t so much more to develop in features and design of interfaces >>more, but I think that this means that most people will loose their interest in >>buying new chessprograms. >>Anybody that agree? >> >>Georg > >Although I agree with your comments in general, take a look at Chessmaster. The >emphasis is put on the beauty of the program's layout, rather than the playing >strength. (Yes, I know Chessmaster's chess engine is strong, but the last two >Chessmaster updates were made without upgrading the engine -- it would be >unthinkable for Fritz 8 to be sold with the same engine as Fritz 7!) > >It's the same as all those fancy chess sets. You know the ones I mean, those >chess sets with Star Trek characters as pieces, or those weird modern-art >sculptures, or whatever else. They're nice to put in a cabinet and admire, but >just try playing with them. Before you make a move you have to ask yourself >"Does Mr. Spock move diagonally or in a straight line?" > >Fritz 6/7 has a very solid looking interface. Do you want more variety, more >beauty? Or do you want something immediately recognizable without any >distractions? I definitely want the latter, but it's a matter of taste. >Chessmaster has been outselling Fritz for years, so I assume most people >disagree with me. This is the wrong test. The real question is if the buyers know about both programs. If you show most people who want to buy a chess program both Fritz and chessmaster in the shop and ask them to choose you may find out if most buyers prefer chessmaster or Fritz. This is the only way to find out what people prefer. About the question in the title of this thread I simply disagree that computerchess is dead. chess programs are not perfect and the fact that they can win most of the humans is irrelevant because they also could beat most of the buyers in 1990 and it did not kill them. Uri
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.