Author: Timothy J. Frohlick
Date: 22:06:01 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
Steven,
You should write a book on CD or DVD about your life in the game entertainment
business. I am sure that at least 1000 of us would purchase it. You could
weave it into a background of what was going on in American society at the time
of every breakthrough. I am sure that Fernando and Bruce could give you some
pointers. I bet that Bob,Vincent and others could supply essays of their work.
TJF
PS Title: My Wanderings in the Computer Chess World.
by Steven Schwartz
On January 22, 2003 at 16:27:32, Steven Schwartz wrote:
>I sauntered over to the chess USENET newsgroups for the first time
>in a couple of months, and I was surprised to see that someone
>reprinted an article I wrote for the Computer Chess Reports many
>years ago. It was interesting revisiting that time, so I will
>copy it here for comments.... if anyone cares:
>
>
>"Pity the Poor Chess Computer Buyer"
>
> If there was ever a blind item in the history of selling, the chess
>computer is it! When the commercial chess computer was introduced to the
>public some 8 years ago, the uninformed public was divided into two schools
>of thought: either the computer must be so strong that no one could ever
>beat it, or it must be so weak as to be useless as a chess opponent.
>Unfortunately, the latter conjecture turned out to be far and away the more
>correct one as proven by those unlucky soles who ventured their hard earned
>money on Chess Challenger 1, JS&A's Computer Chess, CompuChess, and Boris.
>Here were "chess playing opponents" (all three terms used VERY loosely) that
>seemed disinterested in winning but did a tremendous job of leaving pieces
>en prise, giving no thought to positional values, and, worst of all, taking
>inordinate amounts of time to reach obvious conclusions. These electronic
>"wood pushers" probably created a world's record for dissatisfied customers.
>And to add insult to injury, quality control was not all that evident in the
>"ingenious" little gadgets, and department stores and mail-order houses had
>their return policies tested to the limit from customers with complaints
>ranging from, "It takes too long to move!" to "It makes illegal moves!" to
>"It doesn't work at all!" to "It just made a king sacrifice; in fact, it
>ALWAYS seems to sacrifice its king!" Those who chose to endure these earlier
>computers quickly lost interest because of their weaknesses and either put
>them away in the closet or used them for very expensive Frisbees.
>
> Both the computer chess customer and the computer chess market moved
>aimlessly forward for some years with Boris (a product of Applied Concepts
>Inc.) competing with Chess Challenger "10" (from Fidelity Electronics Ltd.)
>for customers who were willing to spend $250 to $300 for a computerized
>chess opponent that looked impressive but actually played 1100 chess.
>However, it wasn't until Fidelity Electronics introduced the Chess
>Challenger "7" that the market exploded. For the very first time the
>"strongest" chess computer on the market (albeit 1150) was under $120, and
>tests proved that it was somewhat stronger than both the "10" and Boris. Ads
>appeared in papers and magazines all over the country, and over a quarter
>million people made the decision to purchase Chess Challenger "7". Fidelity
>Electronics, then located in Chicago, began bursting at the seams as did
>their bank account, and the decision was made to build a huge, beautiful
>factory in Miami, Florida, where their supply could better keep up with the
>incredible demand. The timing of the move was unfortunate, for it interfered
>with Christmas sales because the interruption caused by the move served to
>constrict the supply lines to retailers, and rumors have it that quality
>control died a quick death that 1979 Christmas season.
>
> It was at just about this time that capitalism showed its greedy little
>head; at least five different companies were watching Fidelity's upward
>flight with ideas and visions of new chess computers dancing in their heads.
>To stave off the competition, Fidelity, seemingly without the ability to
>make stronger programs, went the route of gimmickry with voice simulation in
>their Voice Challenger while Applied Concepts Inc., with the help of Chafitz
>Inc., were planning the first real breakthrough in computer chess
>programming... the hiring of Kathe and Dan Spracklen. Sargon 2.5, Kathe and
>Dan's newest program, was incorporated into two impressive computer chess
>machines: the Modular Game System and the Auto Response Board, both playing
>1500 chess (300-400 points stronger than all previous stand alone chess
>playing microprocessors). Each of these units offered a new (and what is now
>considered to be a highly controversial) feature... that of modular
>upgrading. Theoretically, the consumer could purchase either unit, and for
>life could simply obtain updated programs by purchasing inexpensive modules,
>NOT a new machine.
>
> The concept was beautiful; the implementation was highly questionable,
>for Applied Concepts Inc. and Chafitz Inc. had a myriad of misunderstandings
>and shortly parted ways, and the Spracklens were off on their own, no longer
>under contract to continue producing programs for the Modular Game System,
>Great Game Machine, or Auto Response Board. Those anxiously anticipated,
>impressive future modules would not be programmed by the Spracklens any
>longer so other programmers had to step in and devise a 3.0 Module which
>came to be known as Morphy on the Modular Game System (which was renamed the
>Great Game Machine). It is rumored that both Larry Atkin and David Slate,
>two well respected programmers, took part (and are still taking part) in the
>creation of chess programs for Applied Concepts. In spite of the fact that
>Applied had managed to latch onto some excellent programmers, it was from
>this point on that modularity began to get a bad name, for the customer was
>asked to now supplement his $100 Morphy with a $100 Gruenfeld Opening Book
>and a $150 Capablanca End Game. Then came Steinitz to upgrade all three and
>out went another $160. And for those who hadn't thrown up their hands
>already, Mega 4 Mainframe was announced but to this date not introduced to
>update the rest of the unit... good-by another $160.
>Consequently, the ''inexpensive'upgrading would hypothetically cost $1230.00
>and the final results would more than likely not surpass the current
>state-of-the-art under $200 chess computer. Of course, such a policy was not
>really what Applied Concepts had in mind in the beginning, but it was
>obvious that the public was willing to bear the quarterly introduction of
>new modules, and since the competition was getting I rather fierce, the
>company "was between a rock and a hard place." They were forced to put out
>new programs to keep up with their competitors, but the public was asked to
>reach into their pockets each and every time if they wanted to maintain the
>"state of the art". Not unlike the field of education, the motto became
>"publish or perish!" As it turns out, in the chess computer business,
>marketing decisions are often made on a day-to-day basis, but if a lesson
>may be learned here, it is that a chess computer should be purchased on the
>basis of what it does NOW, not what it may do in the future.
>
>Also, with the best intentions, AVE Microsystems, the manufacturer of the
>Auto Response Board, updated (albeit halfheartedly) to a 3.0 Module with the
>promise, but no delivery, of future programs- thus, the customer's original
>$800 investment plus $140 for the 3.0 module, purchased with the under
>standing that "state-of-the-art" would be maintained, resulted,
>realistically, in the ownership of a beautiful chess computer that played no
>better than the $130 Prodigy. Unfortunately, the sophisticated chess player
>who purchased the ARB had no option but to religate his beautiful computer
>to the closet, or take up a collection of them in order to parquet his
>living room floor. SciSys contributed somewhat to the debacle with the'
>Philidor upgrade to the Mark V, an upgrade that didn't really upgrade, and
>the Mark V printer attachment which was promised but never made it to the
>marketplace. Novag upgraded Savant I to Savant II but mostly for the sake of
>correcting malfunctions in the I, and the $1500 updateable Robot Adversary
>(the modernistic polished aluminum chess player with the robotic arm) was
>such a problem mechanically that the U.S. distributor threw in the towel.
>However, even though the Robot Adversary will probably never compete,
>skillswise, with other top-of-the-line chess computers, it can always be a
>readily available armwrestling opponent. Conchess, also, became an instant
>member of the AntiModularity Hall of Fame with its three computer entrants:
>Escorter, Ambassador, and Monarch. All were advertised as, "The one and only
>system truly upgradeable without limit." Not only was the program
>upgradeable but so was the microprocessor- "Now for the first time," the
>customer thought, "I can make the program stronger AND faster!" Guess what?
>Since Milton Bradley took over distribution of the Conchess units in mid
>stream, plans for updating were thrown out the proverbial window, at least,
>until Milton Bradley's contract runs out in early 1984. And we have now
>received information that Waltham Electronics, the manufacturer, has filed
>for bankruptcy.
>
> And let us not forget Fidelity Electronics, which announced 5 modules
>(over and above the two opening book modules) for use with the Prestige,
>Elite A/S, and Sensory "9", and as of this writing has produced none. Of
>course, the customer who spent $1000 on his Prestige is now being asked to
>not only spend $200 for an upgrade to the new Budapest program, but also to
>send his unit to the factory for the privilege. The slot in the side of
>chess computers designed for the purpose of upgrading might just as well be
>cemented shut for all the good it has been in the history of upgradeability.
>Last but not least, we do not mean to leave Mephisto out of the upgrading
>fiasco; their short stint of selling units in the U.S. has already allowed
>for considerable errant behavior including failure to develop the promised
>T.V. interface for the Mephisto, and. more importantly, the introduction of
>the Mephisto III upgrade module which can more accurately be defined as a
>DOWN grade. It boggles the mind to attempt to picture the state of computer
>chess today if ALL updated programs were worse than their predecessors.
>
> Despite all of the above, human nature is such that the concept of
>modularity (as a dangling carrot) was immediately accepted by the chess
>playing public and Applied Concepts Inc. enjoyed an excellent year of sales
>in 1979/1980. Every time a new module was introduced, more customers lined
>up to puchase, but customer enthusiasm for the Modular Game System/Great
>Game Machine began to wane with the introduction of the Capablanca module
>and the announced results of the 1981 World Microcomputer Championships in
>which the Chess Champion Mark V (by SciSys) won the commercial division and
>the Elite won the experimental division.
>
> Since paranoia is a prerequisite for computer chess manufacturers, the
>tournament was deluged by claims of cheating by practically everyone
>involved, and Applied Concepts, after a few unexpected losses, withdrew
>claiming a defective Capablanca module. Since the Elite was an experimental
>program at the time, SciSys had the top end market all to itself with its
>winning Mark V machine, and Christmas season 1981 was fast approaching.
>Unfortunately for the public, the Mark V, which was so readily available for
>the tournament, could not be made available to the American public because
>of one manufacturing problem after another. Wholesale excuses were handed to
>retailers almost daily, and customers were getting extremely impatient after
>having waited, in some cases, over three months for delivery.
>
> To SciSys' extreme chagrin, Fidelity (taking advantage of marketing
>decisons made on 24 hour notice - the industry norm) managed to rush the
>Elite program into production so quickly that Elites (the Experimental World
>Champion program in the body of Champion Sensory Challengers) beat Mark V's
>on to the market by two months and to the surprise of everyone (including
>Fidelity) sold out all 500 units at $1000 list each. By the time Mark V
>became established as available in the U.S., Fidelity had already geared up
>its huge resources to publicize the Champion Sensory Challenger and its
>"established rating" of 1771 ( a rating which, interestingly enough, also
>showed up on the box of the Sensory Challenger "9" which has a different
>program running at a different speed - more about this later). The Mark V, a
>machine which showed so much potential, was laid to rest- not by the
>public - but by its own maker's inefficiency.
>
> Taking liberties with advertising is an art in which chess computer
>manufacturers are well versed: a prime example is the Voice Sensory
>Challenger (rated at approximately 1150-1200) ad which proclaimed, "The same
>engineers who helped win the `First World Microcomputer Chess
>Championship'... are proud to announce Fidelity's newest chess product..."
>It's truthful, of course, but since the Voice Sensory Challenger in no
>manner, shape, or form resembled the Champion program, is it correct to tie
>the two programs together? Mark V advertising literature to this day insists
>that the unit plays 1900; of course, any such estimate can be defended, but
>so can 1670 which we believe is considerably more accurate. Novag
>unabashedly proclaims on its Constellation literature, "Rated at 2000 ELO!
>with "Rated by Novag based on tournament and test results." In tiny letters
>on the bottom of the sheet. Luckily for Novag, the manufacturer is not
>forced to rate the Elite A/S or Prestige on that same "Novag scale"! I think
>all will agree that asterisks ought to be banned from all advertising; they
>always appear to be admitting to some sort of wrongdoing. Mephisto never
>hesitates to claim that it has the strongest program in the world. In fact,
>Hegener and Glaser (Mephisto's manufacturer) distributes the following
>statement in its selling catalog: "Champion Sensory Challenger... proven in
>tournaments against man and machine. The same program as in the CC9 (sic)."
>Apparently, the fact that the program AND clock speed are different has no
>bearing on anything; but it is our guess that actually entering the
>computers in well supervised tournaments with adequate checks and balances
>to avoid questionable results would be infinitely more valuable to the
>computer chess enthusiast who is considering spending a considerable amount
>of money. The irony here is that the 1771 given to the "9" by the
>Federation, solely based upon the manufacturer's word, is quite close to
>reality but ONLY by coincidence.
>
> On occasions, even the nomenclature used in naming units is somewhat
>amusing. Milton Bradley has chosen "Grandmaster" as the name for its new
>chess computer which appears to play in the 1500's not bad, but not 2400
>either. And what about Boris, Morphy, Gruenfeld, Capablanca, and Steinitz?
>There is more than likely a great deal of grave rolling each time a new
>chess computer is released. Why, would you imagine, haven't we seen a Bobby
>Module? Better than that... why can't we have a module that PLAYS like
>Bobby???
>
> It is commonplace when speaking with a given manufacture to hear how
>difficult it is to manufacture and how easy it is to retail. When you speak
>with a retailer, they will not hesitate to say how simple life would be if
>they could manufacture instead of retail. Well, some manufacturers
>occasionally attempt to have the best of both worlds. Prompted by avarice,
>no doubt, and with no regard to the retailers that carry their product, at
>least two manufacturers have attempted to sell directly to the public,
>usually in a surreptitious manner by forming a separate corporation with a
>different name. Now, they could sell at competitive prices and make TWICE as
>much profit as before. Two of the more notable examples of
>manufacturer/retailer behavior were/are Computer Games of Miami, FL., and
>Chesset-al of Dallas, TX. Neither company offered any service other than
>shipping a unit- untested, of course. Retailer pressure on behalf of both
>themselves and their customers has usually resulted in the suspension of
>such behavior, at least for a short time. However, nothing (legal or
>otherwise) insures that these "instant profit makers" will not continue to
>sprout up occasionally.
>
> Despite objections by some larger retailers, Fidelity Electronics makes
>an annual "direct-to-the-public" offering. Last year it was the ill-fated
>"Consumer Distributor" appeal. All that one needed to become a distributor
>for Fidelity way to purchase X amount of outdated product. Then, whenever he
>or his friends wished to purchase a Challenger, "wholesale pricing" was
>available to them. Just imagine thousands of Amway-like organizers selling
>obsolete Chess Challenger "7's" to each other. What fun!
>
> This year the generous factory-direct giveaway included the "Special
>Edition 'Septennial' ". A chess computer designed to celebrate Fidelity"s
>seven years in the commercial computer chess business. The letter
>accompanying the brochure states, "In recognition of your support these past
>seven years, we have made a limited Champion edition, called the
>"Septennial"... and... "This product will not be available through our
>normal retail outlets, and can only be purchased direct from the factory."
>No explanation was given as to why "normal" retail outlets would not be
>allowed to carry this supposed "famed" computer. Here was a machine that
>claimed the following virtues: * "Our famed Prestige program, rated over
>1900 playing strength (the Prestige model retails for $1,295.00)." * "3 mghz
>processor." * "Built-in CB9 (8160 Book Opening Moves) module ($78.00 retail
>value)." * "Housed in the "Champion" hand rubbed walnut housing, with hand
>carved magnetized chess pieces." "A Christmas offer of orgasmic quality, no
>doubt." Well, not quite.
>
> "Unbelieveable, Prestige strength for 1/4 the price." Not really. "The
>company is giving something away for nothing." Not at all. Let us analyze
>the offer and conditions. First, the holiday season offering accomplishes
>two goals: taking business away from the retailer who has supported the
>manufacturer all year, and presenting "facts" about a product which cannot
>be substantiated in time to stop people from being "taken in". Dr.
>Irazoqui's request for a Septennial for testing purposes after being
>surprised by its introduction went unheaded. Why? Some of the more respected
>retailers were not permitted to carry the unit, despite the fact that if it
>were really as good as claimed, it would have sold briskly. Why? Well, even
>though the above quotes from Fidelity's Septennial offer are all true, some
>of them are not quite as precise as they ought be: * The famed Prestige
>program was superb in its generation, but since at least four generations of
>programs have evolved since its introduction, receiving a left-over Prestige
>program is not quite so incredibly exciting.
>* The 3 mghz microprocessor announcement is seemingly quite impressive, but
>is there also some obligation to mention that the program is only running at
>2.4 mghz - 20% slower? * Now, when one computes the above two factors
>together, one might be shocked to realize that this "1900 playing strength"
>really factors out to 1800 or perhaps less, weaker than Prestige Budapest,
>Prestige, Elite A/S, and the significantly less expensive Constellation and
>Sensory "9" Budapest.
>
> What a bargain!!! It would appear that allowing retailers to test and
>sell this limited edition computer would severely curtail Fidelity's ability
>to unload them, and, after all, what would the manufacturer be able to do
>with 3000 old Champion Sensory Challenger bodies with old Prestige chips?
>Perhaps sending them off to Third World countries is a good idea, but they
>used that one in trying to sell outdated Champion Sensory Challengers direct
>to the public some time back.
>
> Many "wool-pullers" have attempted to sell computer chess machines, but
>they do not last very long. Just recently, an ad appeared in the Wall Street
>Journal proclaiming the virtues of the Chess Challenger "7", indicating that
>the "7" was the same program as other Fidelity programs but simply was not
>sensory and therefore could be sold at an extremely low price. The ad also
>made some reference to the "7's" miraculous ability to challenge experts.
>Once again both statements are accurate and inaccurate at the same time.
>Firstly, the "7" indeed is similar in program to such world-renowned duffers
>as the Mini Sensory Challenger and Sensory "8", but is FAR from being in the
>same league with Champion, "9", Elite, Prestige, Super "9", and Elite A/S.
>As far as "challenging experts"... well, that could be the case assuming the
>particular expert were blindfolded, immersed 300 feet under the Artic ice
>caps, and preoccupied with a 250 board simultaneous exhibition.
>Advertising of computer chess machines, because it is such a blind item,
>continues to lead the public astray on occasions. Several retailers and mail
>order companies have attempted to push outdated or weak machines as more
>than they actually were. In general, these companies have survived for
>several months and then, thankfully, disappeared. A recent edition of Chess
>Life magazine sort of summarizes the difficulties of uncovering fact from
>fiction in this industry. I.C.D. Corporation ran an ad proclaiming Mephisto
>III as "Rewriting Computer Chess History!" Certainly, no other program has
>EVER performed worse than its preceding one. Fidelity proclaimed its Elite
>A/S as world champion with no reference to the fact that Elites did not come
>with the same program. They also announced their "9" as the winner in the
>commercial division; they did NOT announce that there was only one other
>entrant - an East German computer (enough said about the quality of the
>competition?). And, finally, a mysterious ad on the back page by a newcomer
>in the industry proclaimed that the Novag Constellation, "beat two masters
>at the U.S. Open! 't heat Experts and A players, Too! It sacrifices!!!
>Rating 1850+ !!! simply the finest chessplaying computer availablestronger
>than Elite and Super 9." Other than the proclivity to add exclamation
>points,.?here is more NOT said than said. What is NOT said is that the U.S.
>Open Constellation was running 50% faster than the unit being sold and may
>possibly have had a different program. Also NOT stated is which Elite is
>being compared: Elite (from two years ago) or Elite A/S. And what makes a
>chess computer "Simply the finest chessplaying computer available?" Does
>that ACTUALLY mean that you are rated higher than all the others? What about
>Prestige and Elite A/S?
>
> The most valuable and most vulnerable pawn in the chess game of computer
>chess is the consumer. The prospective computer chess customer has always
>been confronted with the same difficulty-that of receiving adequate
>information and adequate selection. Such an incredibly large number of
>people have purchased computer chess machines only to find that the
>propanganda which influenced them to buy was far from reality; the lucky
>ones were able to get refunds; the unlucky ones will probably never venture
>their money on a unit again even though the selection and abilities of
>today's computers are so impressive. However, there is another class of
>customer that has hesitated to buy a computer chess machine: they are the
>people who refuse to spend their money now, "because something stronger and
>better is bound to come out shortly!" Anyone who negates this statement is
>not being truthful, for we have here a technology that will not cease to
>improve after you purchase your chess computer. However, as a reason for not
>purchasing, it is very weak. There are several considerations involved:
>First, the longer you wait for progress to bring you the "perfect chess
>computer", the longer you live without a computer. Second, some people tend
>to believe that their computers are outdated if something stronger comes
>along even though they have trouble beating their own computer at its first
>level, but it should be noted that obsolescence in chess computers is
>limited solely to the computer's inability to beat you at reasonable time
>levels.
>
> The third class of computer chess customer might be considered "The
>Collector." He will carefully select a new computer in each generation so as
>to have a variety of skills and styles to play against, and most collectors
>enjoy running the computers against each other to analyze for himself the
>relative strengths and weaknesses of the programs.
>
> It was quite ironic that just as the market was proving that the chess
>computer had the potential to be more than just a fad, and just as the chess
>computers were beginning to truly play competitive chess (better than the
>average member of the United States Chess Federation), and just as chess
>computers were incorporating truly interesting features (take-back, hints,
>thinking on opponent's time, sensory surfaces, quick responses, etc.), and
>just as more and more companies decided to jump into the computer chess
>marketplace (Conchess, Milton Bradley, Mephisto, Hanimex, etc.), the
>marketplace began to shrink, slowly at first, and then with increasing
>speed. The reason was not evident at first, but as time went on, it became
>more and more obvious: the more complicated the computers became, the more
>trouble people had operating them. Invariably, a customer would purchase a
>chess computer at a local department store and find when he/she returned
>home that the instructions did not adequately cover the topic of how to
>operate the unit. In addition, the industry has seen it share of customers
>who believe that instruction manuals are not necessary and, consequently,
>all human errors are immediately assumed to be computer errors (you see, the
>customer isn't ALWAYS right). Therefore, in the mind of the consumer, the
>product was defective, and since the clerk at the store knew nothing of the
>product, money was refunded or, worse, the unit was exchanged for a second,
>which, of course, was seen, once again as being defective. Result: "Chess
>computers are either ALL defective or just too complicated to deal with,"
>the customer would be heard muttering as he threw his hands up on disgust.
>As these problems multiplied, the department and chain stores, who were so
>anxious to carry the product in its heyday, one by one, threw up their own
>hands in disgust and deserted what they considered to be a sinking ship.
>
> It should be duly noted that quality control in the computer chess
>industry, in general, is a problem. We know of people who had to return 5 or
>6 of a given machine to their local store before they were given one which
>"worked". And, of course, there are documented cases of customer's who NEVER
>received a properly operating unit, but luckily these are the exceptions to
>the rule. Two instances have been documented whereby a 100% defect rate was
>found to exist. In other words, every single customer who purchased that
>model unit had a unit that did not operate properly. Over 50% defect rates
>are surprisingly common and there are a myriad of cases in which programs
>were released to the public with gliches that included failure to castle or
>accept en passant, an opening book so limited as to allow only one response
>to king pawn, indicated approximate response times which were underestimated
>to the extreme (the unit taking 45 minutes to respond at a three minute per
>response level) and instances of the computer capturing its own pieces or
>simply blacking out in a lost position. In some of these cases the
>manufacturer denied that a problem existed until the evidence was so
>overwhelming that further denials were impossible, but in most cases the
>individual manufacturers have been extremely anxious to clear up any and all
>instances of problems, and it has not been all that uncommon that
>manufacturers went well beyond the call of duty to satisfy a given customer.
>
> The defect rate in the industry as a whole is somewhere in the vicinity
>of 15%, but don't ever try to suggest that to the companies, for they will
>freely "admit" that they are struggling because of the "much too high" 2%
>failure rate. However, the most depressing fact of all is that most of the
>defective units arrive at the retailer as defective or break within the
>first 20 minutes of operation. The major problem is, more than likely, that
>the rush to get new products out onto the market before the competition
>dies, is of a higher priority than making sure that the units will stand up
>to normal usage. If each manufacturer were to "test drive" every computer as
>it came off the production line, even for 5 minutes each, 80% of the
>problems would be resolved.
>
> It can be easily assumed that the manufacturers, in general, would not be
>all that delighted with an article such as this, but, quite frankly, despite
>some ominous undertones here, this industry is no worse than any other, and,
>in fact, in many ways we have been witness to brave attempts to correct
>problems at the sake of losing significant sales. We can also say that
>retailers often deserve to share a significant portion of the burden, for
>they have been known to inflate ratings as well perhaps because it was in
>their special interests to "push" one brand of computer over another. Most
>local department stores, the ones that still care enough to carry the
>product, apparently do not care enough to learn the units as they should so
>that the customer might feel at home with the unit. And by far the most
>important factor contributing to customer unrest is the quality control
>problem; if the manufacturer will not take the steps necessary to insure
>reliability, then it is the responsibility of the retailer. As a consumer,
>we have been conditioned to believe that "factory-sealed cartons" have some
>saintly, virginal quality to them, but in this industry, you must demand
>that the unit be THOROUGHLY tested before taking ownership. In that way,
>your odds of having a properly operating machine are greatly enhanced. And
>as your last defense, check into the company's reputation, accessability,
>and return policy. Ask friends or club members about their experiences with
>a given company: were they given accurate information prior to the sale; was
>their order handled quickly; if there was a problem with their unit, were
>they able to contact the company quickly; and was their problem handled
>quickly and to their satisfaction. If you are unable to gather such
>information, check to see if the company is a member of the Better Business
>Bureau and if they participate in arbitration through that organization.
>Please remember that just the fact that a given company sells some brands of
>computer chess machines does not make them an expert in the field; ask
>pointed questions and listen carefully to the answers; in all probability,
>you will select the right company.
>
> What does the future of commercial computer chess hold in store for us?
>Perhaps the saying, "They will do it until they get it right!" has some
>meaning here. It seems indisputable that as more and more computers are
>produced, their quality will improve- both in quality control and
>programming. Also evident is the fact that the size of the current market
>cannot satisfy the goals of the 10 manufacturers whichxare crowded into it.
>There will have to be some casualties: even Fidelity is moving into computer
>printers to buffer itself against possible losses in the computer chess
>market. Who the casualties will be will be dependent upon the size of the
>marketplace and the quality of the programming. It seems certain that a
>unified effort on the part of the manufacturers, retailers, and U.S. Chess
>Federation to expand the market could go a long way toward promoting chess
>and computer chess at the same time. Unfortunately, the prognosis for such
>an effort is poor, for the paranoia index continues to run very high. It is
>not uncommon to hear one manufacturer or another privately claim that "the
>other manufacturer has the Federation in its pocket!" In such an atmosphere,
>it is safe to assume that the ongoing dogfight will result in the survival
>of, perhaps, three computer chess manufacturers. This could drastically
>change with the reincarnation of Bobby Fisher or the emergence of Yasser
>Seirawan as a future World Champion, for it is events such as this that
>consistently boost the numbers of people that follow chess and, as a result,
>purchase computerized chess playing machines.
>
> Chess programs for home computers, a field which has been mostly ignored
>because of the stand-alone manufacturer's grip on the world's better
>programmers, will continue to get better but apparently will lag behind the
>selfcontained units because of the latter's ability to specialize in chess,
>and, more importantly, because there is more money to be made in marketing a
>chess computer than a chess computer program. Not everybody can write a
>chess program and not everybody wants to. Unfortunately for the personal
>computer owner wishing to purchase a program, just about everything
>available is in the class of skill of chess computers from four years ago.
>
> So it is obvious that chess computers will continue to get stronger and,
>hopefully, easier to-operate. The movement is toward sensory machines with
>the most recent emphasis on magnetic sensory boards, whereby, one need only
>move the pieces in a very natural manner. The trend also favors larger
>boards although we do not believe the units with 1 " squares or portable
>units will disappear. Modularity, although pretty much proven to be
>overstated, will continue to be emphasized by companies because it SELLS
>machines, and, after all, that is an important factor. Apparently, the
>future of computer chess, when it comes to the sheer number of people who
>will purchase new units each year, is not nearly as bright as it once
>appeared to be, but the people who do purchase are less likely to be the
>guinea pigs of the industry as long as they deal with established,
>knowledgeable, and reputable dealers who do the research that the customer
>could not possibly do. And ironic as it may seem, just this type of dealer
>support might help to point the industry in the right direction once again.
>For the sake of our common love of these ingenious little computerized chess
>players, let us hope so.
>
> So, there you have a not-so-capsulized history of the commercial chess
>field - blemishes and all. The blemishes seem far worse than they really are
>for two reasons: one, there are seven years of history wrapped in twelve
>pages of reporting, and, two, there are truly fine people in this business
>who have a love for both chess and computer chess and their influence is
>great in this field. "Let the buyer beware" is an idiom applicable to every
>industry, and one cannot pretend that it has no meaning here- the past has
>proven that, but, in spite. of it all, computer chess has given millions of
>people more enjoyment per dollar than just about any other activity in which
>they could engage. Of course, the older one becomes, the truer the above
>statement becomes (if you know what I mean!).
>
>Steven Schwartz
>ICD Corp./Your Move Chess & Games
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.