Author: Mike S.
Date: 02:44:15 05/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2003 at 19:53:45, Mogens Larsen wrote: >(...) >>Conclusion:it is not clear to me what is better based on the results. >Despite the haphazard analysis, your conclusion is correct. The results >shouldn't have a lot of marketing value, even though they have been used as such >before. Most of the engines are probably new or newish, but so what. Just add X >at the end of the engine name. The info about Leiden or the Dutch CCCh. are somewhat "insiderish", IOW *if* the results are known to more than a few people (a few = less than 1.000), than it's probably only because they are published on websites which have large audiences, like chessbase.com too. I don't know if TWIC publishes comp tournaments... I guess not. I've recently examined The King's history in the Dutch Computer Championships. I found 5 title wins, most often ahead of Quest: http://f11.parsimony.net/forum16635/messages/47665.htm I don't think that these results influence sales of Chessmaster or Fritz or of others (not even, if Quest would have been called Fritz and if King would have been called Chessmaster, in these tournaments :o). We customers shouldn't care about sales figures and such things anyway... that takes us nowhere. We should judge upon quality & price and that's it. Furthermore it's obvious that the engine versions will be the latest developement versions always, in such tournaments where the programmers operate. Nobody would believe that somebody runs an "old" retail version there, anyway. :o) Regards, Mike Scheidl
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.