Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:09:52 01/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2002 at 08:22:12, Ed Schröder wrote:
>What about one of the latest examples? Somebody posts in the CSS forum
>information about new software of Chess Assistant, it was forbidden by CSS, the
>contents of the information was commercial, they said. Isn't that to cry about?
Yes, it was so commercial that the product announced was/is _free_ (CA Light).
Better yet, all the posts complaining about their reprimand were promptly
erased. I was quite surprised. At first I saw the reprimand, and was annoyed,
but chose to ignore it. Then I saw a few posts appear complaining about their
posture. 1 post, 2, 3, 4. Then the number went backwards. 3 posts were left, 2,
2 more appeared, *poof!* they were gone. It left a bad taste I must say.
Another thing I didn't like, was that to make up for it, CL posted a review (he
explained it this way) of CA6 leading me to believe that this was to be the
basis of his review. After all, there was his apologetic explanation, his
signature, and the page-long review. I replied to it, as none of the CA6.1
features were mentioned, and only later realized that the review he had posted
was not his own. It was from John Eklund and copied and pasted (with no mention
of the true author) there.
As to the CSS review of Chess Assistant 6.0 (positive to be fair), a couple of
details should be added: The article came out about 7 months after CA6 hit the
market and when the free upgrade CA 6.1 had already been available for _months_.
Please note that the 6.1 patch was MUCH more than a bug fix. It brought in a
number of new features including a very sophisticated Book Builder (far more
powerful than Fritz's) that could easily have been a major feature of a future
paid version. On the other hand, detailed articles about certain programs that
had yet to appear (Fritz 7 and the server) came out regularly. Mind you, this is
absolutely within their rights, but to claim complete objectivity and that all
are treated alike is not.
Albert
>
>What about Rebel 11, they posted an user-letter in the magazine, the person was
>unable to install it. Tell you, at Rebel support we seldom to none receive such
>a complaint, say 1 to 1000. Was this typical for Rebel 11, not installing? I
>don't think so.
>
>However such an user-letter is a bomb under a product regarding sales and they
>know it. Whatever good review is written in a magazine such an user-letter kills
>the review, who wants to have a program that even can't install?
>
>You see, those are the CSS practices, killing other competing software and I
>have a long list of other similar examples and many of those examples are not
>Rebel related at all.
>
>With all of this I can live (well in a way) and I will hold back my voice the
>day CSS gives up their claim being an independent magazine, which they are not.
>
>CSS needs to review other chess software to keep up their "independent" status
>which ensures better sales. In the meantime other quality chess software does
>not get the attention it needs and that is softly speaking because competitive
>software is misused to show the readers their stuff is best. This all in the
>name of being independent.
>
>Believe me, I have nothing against the members of the CCS forum and you should
>not take the criticism I have against the CSS policy personal. Fritz and co are
>great, the members of the CSS forum also, the CSS itself is not.
>
>Ed
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.