Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 23:09:22 12/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 1998 at 22:15:51, Micheal Cummings wrote:
>
>On December 17, 1998 at 20:53:00, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On December 17, 1998 at 00:19:50, Micheal Cummings wrote:
>>>On December 17, 1998 at 00:02:53, Mark Young wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 16, 1998 at 17:11:20, Komputer Korner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>This is good news about the CM7 opening book editor, but if they don't also add
>>>>>the capability of analyzing in player player mode with the engine showing on
>>>>>screen analysis and score eval while taking back and moving forward moves, then
>>>>>ChessMaster will still remain a toy program. This is the single most important
>>>>>feature in chess programs which all the high end programs have.
>>>>>--
>>>>>Komputer Korner
>>>>
>>>>I would have expected better from KK. To play off peoples prejudice about
>>>>Chessmaster by calling it a toy is a very misleading and low blow. People
>>>>already have a hang up about Chessmaster because of its low price. To suggest
>>>>that Chessmaster is nothing more then a toy, does everyone a disservice.
>>>>Chessmaster lacks in some areas, and excels in others, like all programs. I
>>>>would suggest that Chessmasters deserve respect just for it is playing strength
>>>>alone. Moreover, would never tell anyone this program is just a toy.
>>>>
>>>>Mark Young
>>>
>>>I fully agree with you, it is a degrading post, and is nothing short of saying
>>>that the program is a piece of Rubbish, because when you use toy in that figure
>>>of speech that is what you are putting across.
>>>And if you say you are not, then you are wrong, because I read it and see it
>>>like that. and I asked my girlfriend who has a degree is mass comunication to
>>>read it, and told her to tell me what it is saying to her, and she said he is
>>>portraying that it is rubbish nothing that is worth considering. Wrong choice of
>>>words KK for trying to put your view across. Wrong figure of speech.
>>>
>>>And this post maybe should be removed because I think it is the same as saying
>>>for example "'Chessbase is a toy and made by a toy company. Which is the same as
>>>saying Chessbase is pathetic and so is the company."
>>When we start removing on-topic opinions about a chess product -- even on-topic
>>and *harsh* opinions -- then this group has lost all usefulness. I think
>>everyone is reading _way_ too much into this "toy" thing. This is not a
>>personal slam against anyone. It is KK's _opinion_ about a particular
>>*product*. It's not libelous or slanderous. It's just a strong feeling about a
>>certain lack of features. I happen to agree. Probably even more happen to
>>disagree. What's next, a list of adjectives that are acceptable? "Joe used a
>>word not on the list! Pull it! Ban him!" [FCOL]. Any and all reviewers look
>>at a product and tell us what they like and what they dislike. A sensible
>>person will look over the list and match up that data with their wants and
>>desires to see if they want to persue further. KK's review of the product was
>>hardly scathing. Now that he has used it a while, he finds certain lacking
>>features annoying {I'm reading between the lines a bit here -- obviously}.
>>Anyway, it's an opinion. About a product. Why not just take it or leave it or
>>say how *you* feel.
>>IMO-YMMV.
>
>Its a matter of chosing the right words. his use of words were wrong. Just
>because the words used were not rude or harsh, does not mean that they are not
>offensive and wrong. Reading his post we all know what his words meant. And if
>he did not mean to convey his meaning in this manner, then he should have chosen
>his words more carefully.
>
>No one is picking on how he reviews, but if you see a movie reviewer in the
>newpaper, saying "Oh this movie has to be the most common movie I have ever
>seen, Roger acted like he was a happy man drowning in a bathtub, and to say Jane
>was anything more than a common dog is to give her more credit than it is worth.
>
>Now there is nothing worng with the rudeness of those words, alone they are
>harmless, but the innocent words that we use everyday when put into this context
>easily portrays that movie is in other words is a piece of shit with shit
>actors.
>
>Using the word toy in his post portrays he is saying that CM6K is nothing more
>than a piece of shit. Not even worth to be considered.
>
>Maybe if he feels like that then he should remove his reviews from the resource
>centre and alter it to what he really thinks.
>
>And yes to me the CCC, we all should make it into a respectable place and to
>rise above this trashing of programs, if there is something wrong with a
>program, then there are far easier ways to put it across than how he did it. I
>mean in his review he told us what was wrong with it and what it was lacking
>without being offensive, now he has turn into a person who wrote it in an
>offensive way.
I once had a copy of Chessmaster 4000 Turbo. Its opening book editor was not a
toy, nor a joke. Frankly, it was a piece of shit.
One had to interact with a pathetically small chess board. Why they couldn't
have used the normal boards with the opening book editor, I don't know. But on
my monitor, the board was about as wide as my thumbnail. It did not function if
your video driver was displaying only 16 colours. What is so special about an
opening book editor that it should require 256 colours? The main program ran
fine in 16 colour mode. That doesn't sound like many colours today, but
resolutions like 800x600x16 and 1024x768x16 were pretty common back then,
because the video cards only held 256Kb to 1 Mb. There were other problems too,
but I used it too long ago for me to enumerate them completely now.
Calling a spade a spade offends some people's sensibilities from time to time,
but that is often unlikely to deter those who feel it is important to
characterize their opinion accurately. My personal opinion is that getting
riled by such a statement isn't going to effect change in how those people
communicate, but I suppose you are welcome to try.
And as for the CM6000 book editor, hopefully it has been improved from the
CM4000 days!
Dave Gomboc
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.