Author: Robert Pawlak
Date: 04:26:38 01/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
>>Robin, >> >>What you have said is simply not true. > >First you say what I said is "simply not true" ... > ><snip> > >>Programs like Fritz are really sufficient for most people. > >And then you go on to make the _only_ point I was trying to make? Is the above >sentence of yours then not true too? Because that is _all_ I was trying to say. > Ok, if this is your point, then I agree with it. But I do not agree with the original text of your message which stated: "For analysis such as you mention I think any one of the Chessbase programs, Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Hiarcs etc. should work very well. The databases don't have the same level of analysis features and cost more." The first sentence imposes no qualifications on the population of people that should consider a database (i.e. "most people"). And the second sentence is not correct. The databases cost more, but at least in CA's case, have much more functionality. >could make an equally strong case for Chessbase. There _is_ a reason most GM's >use Chessbase. But I digress. I think we can agree, as you stated above, that >for the causual user a $50 program like Fritz is good enough. Now, my _opinion_ is that most GMs (and many class players) use Chessbase because that is what everyone else uses. For a while, if you wanted a windows program, then CB was your best option. People got used to using it, and got used to the Chessbase way of doing things. It makes it much harder for other decent products to gain any kind of market share. But I am getting off track her. Bob
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.