Author: stuart taylor
Date: 17:29:30 10/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2004 at 17:09:14, Peter Skinner wrote: >On October 17, 2004 at 16:33:06, Derek Paquette wrote: > >>a) The program wins or comes 2 place in a WCCC or other 'high end' computer >>tournament. > >Not so important. If that was the case I would have _all_ chess programs, as >most have faired well in some sort of tournament.. somewhere.. > >>b) The program defeats a grandmaster in a series of games > >Definately. I don't think the win is as important is as how the program plays. >ie. The Junior loss in this latest tournament. _Any_ program would have lost >that game. The GM simply outplayed the computer. > >>c) The program has a good past history of always increasing its elo relative to >>SSDF by a significant amount > >Yes and no. As seen with Tiger 14, and Tiger 15.0 that their rating is almost >identical, yet in actual games that I play, one does things differently than the >other. > >> >>d) You enjoyed other versions of the program and can only hope that future >>versions are just as enjoyable > >90.00000000000000000000001% of the reason I purchase programs. I don't need the >strongest out there to be happy. GNUChess still kicks my butt. I prefer a >certain style of play. > >>e) You talked to the programmer or tester of the program and can only hope that >>his or her boasting turns out to be true. > >None. > >>f) A popular person in this 'community' recommends it. > >None. > >>g) Its distributer/sponsor/owner > >None > >>h) Its price. > >To a certain degree, but almost all are the same price now. > >Based on my answers here, I would have to say I purchase my program based on a >certain style of play. Gandalf is one of my favorite programs, Junior as well. > >Out of all programs, Hiarcs is by far my favorite. I love it's style of play, >has excellent results vs GM/IM's, and the author is a terrific person in >general. > >ChessTiger is another favorite based on style of play, and the integrity of the >author. Christophe doesn't release a new version just because someone else has, >or because it is the Christmas shopping season, or that he needs extra money for >a vacation. He releases one when he is good and ready, and he knows there is an >improvement. That to me justifies purchasing his program whether or not it does >well. Just supporting that attitude with our game is something I wish _all_ >programmers should follow. > >There are also reasons I will not re-purchase a given program. False advertising >is one (ie. Ruffian 2.0.0 by Frank Quinsky), the author not caring about his >potential customers (ie. Vincent Diepeveen's comments about his possible >clients). > >Some people just do not think before they speak and in the end, it ruins their >sales by a large sum. There are many here that will not purchase Diep because of >Vincent's comments, and frankly I can't blame them. > >Imagine if AMD came out and said they didn't want "geeks" to purchase their >processors. Seeing how 90% of the people of purchase computers want a "Pentium", >the "geeks" are their base :) It would ruin them. > >Peter According to what you write here, I would feel very supportive of Tiger indeed! If it's true that Tiger 15 gets the same rating but with much more fancy play, then I really support the idea that Tiger 15 is a worthy upgrade. It ought to be stronger than Tiger 14 against humans at any rate, and much more instructive too. It would be worth the same thing as about 100-200 elo points in my reckoning. Ultimately it would overtake all others, e.g. if speed was increased enomously and buggs eliminated....from that and all programs equally. My other comments I'll answer in a seperate post. S.Taylor
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.