Author: Mike Hood
Date: 04:19:23 12/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2001 at 09:00:32, Uri Blass wrote: >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. I have to agree with you on this. The fact that Chessmaster outsells Fritz isn't just a matter of the quality and/or beauty of the two programs, it's also a marketing question. I know of four stores in my town that sell computer games. All of them sell Chessmaster, none of them sell Fritz. This is (probably?) a deliberate decision by Chessbase. Chessbase wants Fritz to be an "elite" program, so the price is kept high (compared with Chessmaster) and it is only sold by specialist shops/mailorder firms that are inside knowledge to "chess freaks". Members of chess clubs -- a very small percentage of the overall population -- might buy Fritz, but if little Johnny asks his Dad for a chess program for Christmas the chances are minimal that he'll find Fritz in his stocking.
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.