Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 22:29:57 12/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2003 at 23:05:15, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 19, 2003 at 22:54:09, Thomas Mayer wrote: > >>Hi Djordje, >> >>thank you for that statement. >> >>Let me add, that I fully agree with the point - I believe myself, that Ruffian >>2.0 is the strongest winboard engine... The problem is, that as a company it is >>a problem to advertise it like that - because you can not prove it... and in >>german law when you make a claim in advertising that you are best, strongest or >>whatever and somebody goes to court you must proof it... and the law is very >>strict there, the difference must be very huge (I believe that even a single >>position where another engine is better would be a problem at court), the >>difference must exist since a long time and the difference must be there for a >>long time in the future... if you can't proof it you have a problem... I hope >>that nobody will go to court because of that topic. You see, you have already >>declared that Deep Sjeng scores 46% against Ruffian 2.0 when Deep Sjeng uses the >>Dual - now give both engines a quad Operton - I am quite sure that Deep Sjeng >>will win now - and it does not play any role that this is an hardware that >>usually nobody has at home... because the statement is, that Ruffian 2.0 is the >>strongest winboard engine... (besides, today does not mean available) >>Another problem is for sure that Frank does not want to understand that >>arguments at all... >> >>Anyway - I wish you and all partners in the Ruffian team great success in the >>future, the engine definitely deserve it ! >> >>Greets, Thomas > >I think that the law is a stupid law. > >It is known to me that advertisment is often about trying to convince people in >wrong things so I find it as absurd if someone that does not try to convince >people in wrong things may have problems with the law when people who really try >to convince people in wrong thing but smart enough to do it in the right way >can be sure of not having problems with the law. > I have two problems with the law. First, it is nearly impossible to prove it. So does it mean you cannot say anything? Second, all the chess engine makers say that there engine is the best on the box. Of course, it is common sense that they say that. Probably, all of them believe it too. So show me the modest chess engine writer who puts on the box: "This engine is pretty good. I don't really know if it is as good or better than the other ones, but I hope it is strong." I would buy it almost for that reason alone. ;-) But we will never see a box like that.
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.