Author: Peter Skinner
Date: 08:03:55 11/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2004 at 00:31:56, Chessfun wrote: >Sorry but it isn't *correct* to say the same advertising was done for 5.0 from >432h. I don't mind if you choose not to believe what is written. But to lead >others to believe the same claims were made is not only wrong but IMO damages >Gandalf unfairly. > >http://www.rebel.nl/gandalf.htm Your right. It does not state that it was 100 elo better. I was wrong. It does however state: "Gandalf 5.0 is strong, clearly stronger than its predecessor version 4.32h." I don't think that was correct either. >That can/could be done without the use of the word "scam". > >Sarah. Personally I feel _any_ misleading/false advertising is a "scam". It is obvious that version 5.0 is _not_ clearly stronger than 4.32h. Authors should definately be more careful in their advertising of _their_ programs. Chess Tiger 2004 is in the same boat in some ways. It was advertised as being stronger and faster than Chess Tiger 15.0. Is it? Definately. Is it showing it? No. Why? There is a book problem. The engine itself is producing stronger moves than CT 15.0, and is in fact faster. The advertising here was fine. As I said before. I hope that all the advertising for Gandalf turns out to be true. I used to be a tester for Steen, and I wish him all the best. Truely I do. Gandalf was one of my favorite programs due to it's playing style. I just hope for the program's sake the advertising turns out to be true. Peter
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.