Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:17:41 02/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 1999 at 20:41:52, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote: First off, I meant to direct my remarks into 'the open air' rather than at you personally. I had no intention to offend and I apologize in sincerity for any annoyance I have caused. >I see absolutely no dissagreement in our point of view; I leave it to you (and >every one else who wants a program like HIARCS DOS (insert any other's), at >$99.95 to buy its wonderful quality. And the rest of us to buy the Windows >programs like Fritz5, Junior, and Nimzo for $48.95. (Again, insert any other's >as examples). I have absolutely no problem with that, and in your reply I see >no dissagreement about that. Sorry if I seem to be repeating myself. And here >is a typical language problem, I didn't think I was being 'a bit fresh', I >orriginally wrote that I was posting my opinion at the risk of being a bit rude. > Maybe the same thing, but shouldn't I be quoted correctly, and be credited for >admitting that from the start? And why are you saying that I am, 'at the very >least to demand such an analysis from a software manufacturer.' - I posted here >for anyone to give their opinion about this issue. I was not demanding anything >from anybody. I was not directing my remarks at you, per se. I was not quoting you either. I was (rather) giving my impression of the content of the thread in general. If cost arguments are not directed at the manufacturer, then who? Certainly nobody else can do much about the retail price. And who else besides the manufacturer can give a justification of cost? Others can say why they are willing to pay the price or not willing to. That is all. >(other than their opinion, which I was NOT demanding, only >requesting). Oh well, I guess we are all just taking ourselfs a little too >seriously... I agree. And if I did offend you, I apologize. I recognize your ability to compose logical arguments and also have great respect for your appeal for calm. If we all "counted to ten" before we posted, perhaps it would be a large benefit. >So if posting ones opinion is too rude (fresh), for you, than I appoligize for >doing so. I have noticed on this forum of late that many of the people here are >taking all this stuff too seriously (at least from my point of wiew - Gee, have >I qualified that enough?). While I am not exactly going to quit this forum, I >will plan on posting mostly on rec.games.chess.computer, or rec.games.chess.misc >for now on. We should all lighten up... Agreed. I don't really think discussing prices is wrong. But the only group that can explain why prices are what they are is the team that produces the tool. For them to reveal that information actually gives the competitors an advantage. I think (for example) it would have been a very good thing to ask: "Why would you buy Hiarcs 7 when it costs more than Fritz or Junior?" Such a question is relatively neutral and allows people to state opinions on one side or the other of the question without feeling a need to overreact. Then, those people who do buy Hiarcs could explain the value added that influenced their decision. Probably a few ELO points in the SSDF will influence some. The ability to process EPD is a huge plus for me. In fact, it is crucial for C.A.P. because crafty does not correctly analyze positions with a single forced move. Some people probably buy it because for the Mac, I don't think anything else can touch it. Some might buy it to round out their collection (for the one who likes to collect). Some might buy it because there is a dealer nearby. Some might not like Hiarcs because of price. Some might not like the DOS interface. A calm discussion of pro's and con's could well influence the manufacturer to reconsider development directions or pricing strategy.
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.