Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 08:23:09 11/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2004 at 11:03:55, Peter Skinner wrote: >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 I would agree...any advertising that a program is "clearly stronger" than a predecessor when it is not, is a sales tactic based on statements that are untrue. This is practically the definiton of "scam". Roger
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.