Author: Albert Silver
Date: 07:46:36 11/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2004 at 07:01:52, Chuck wrote:
>On November 20, 2004 at 23:31:19, ERIQ wrote:
>
>>On November 20, 2004 at 21:11:14, Chuck wrote:
>>
>>>Seems like more of an advertisement than a review. Seriously.
>>>
>>>
>>>A couple of points to elaborate:
>>>1. Only one negative comment is made, that being an upfront disclaimer about the
>>>dropping of ICC, obviously putting the fire out first. After that, no contrasts
>>>with other programs that put CA in a negative light. This is not a review. It's
>>>a commercial.
>>>2. It seems that all of your recent reviews are only of Convekta products (not
>>>to mention you were a beta tester), so I think you should state up front what
>>>your relationship is with the company, if any.
>>>
>>>Now my opinion, as a long-time CB8 user, is that Chess Assistant may be a
>>>worthwhile competitor. One issue on which I have no data, is how often it
>>>crashes or corrupts data files. I have know CB8 to occasionally corrupt data
>>>files.
I honestly never lost any games or bases through CA6/7, so I see no reason to
expect it through CA8. All my database needs were done through CA as it was tons
faster for absolutely any complex search. Things like a player search obviously
took a couple of seconds on either CB8, which I have and use for things like
reading Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual or for CB engines, but others like maneuvers,
complex structures, etc. are no comparison.
>>>
>>>Overall, it seems worth a try, especially if the price is less than Chessbase,
>>>and what I've seen of CB9 hasn't impressed me yet. On the other hand, I see the
>>>dropping of ICC for the server chosen as a big mistake. Perhaps giving the
>>>option of another, more international server would have done better? My point
>>>here is I recognize ICC is not the best corporate partner, especially since they
>>>think they already have everything, but the chosen server is hardly acceptable,
>>>in my opinion, to the English-speaking market.
>>
>>ICC is a dying server now w/ all of it's issues, I don't blame them a bit.
>>
>>Why would I choose a chess web server that doesn't even have an English help
>>file?
>>why not ?!
>
>I think I answered this question in this paragraph, though it's now difficult to
>tell since it was broken into pieces by the reply.
>
>>No matter how you try to
>>>spin it, your arguement won't fly when there are a number of native English
>>>chess servers out there. I have to sum this up as Convekta choosing the Russian
>>>market over the English market, which is their choice and I'm sure the Russian
>>>market is big, but it does exclude me.
>>
>>why would it exclude you ??
>
>Again, we have a self-answering question here if one took the time to read a
>paragraph and recognize the message therein. Why would the Russian market
>exclude me? Perhaps because I'm not Russian!?
Actually, I fail to see the reasoning in this myself. Does one need to be
American or British to feel included in ICC? The lack of a help file is a
problem if you have trouble using it, which is probably why Bob went to so much
trouble describing it, but I haven't had any problems there myself. I like their
automated tourneys with powerful crosstables. No need to talk to anyone about
entering a tourney, and it runs by itself. The crosstables are clickable so that
you can see how each game went by clicking on the crosstable, or follow them
live also by clicking on it, etc. Games start automatically as well, so no need
to find so-and-so and get them to play you. Etc. There are other things, and
with time, it's still young, more will be offered and problems will be tweaked.
As far as I know, the only people excluded from it are non-chess players, not
non-Russians.
Albert
>I'm trying hard here to just ask
>for a little reasoning capacity and not correspond on the level of the questions
>asked.
>
>Regards,
>
>Chuck
>
>>I have little need to talk to anyone while playing and most will find the
>>interface easy to figure out anyway.
>>
>>>Again, I think overall that CA8 may be worth trying, but certainly not for the
>>>internet chess service. Chessbase beware.
>>I agree the internet service has fallen by the waste side but CA in general is a
>>great product that seems to keep getting better, IMHO I think f.i.c.s. would
>>have been a better choice for them but what do I know? :)
>>
>>
>>>Chuck
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.