Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:03:20 12/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2003 at 01:29:57, Dann Corbit wrote:
>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?
Yes, it makes me curious to start checking every single Chessbase box and see
exactly what they state. I can just see the trials:
- Shredder won the WC so it is best.
- Fritz topped the SSDF so *it* is best
- Junior tied Kasparov so IT is best.
- Green Light can find WAC position 256 faster than the above so _IT_ is the
best.
Etc.
Come on.....
Albert
>
>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.