Author: Steven Schwartz
Date: 07:29:09 08/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks, Robert for digging the article up. It really brings back lots of memories for me. That was 6 years of my life... - Steve (ICD/Your Move) >This article is from Volume 3, No.1 of CCR, First Half 1992 Review, pages 21 - >23. > >================== >Now It Can Be Told > >By Steven Schwartz > >I think I would never have made this story public if the chess computer industry >had not been turned inside out these past two years. > >As indicated elsewhere in this issue by Larry, Excalibur is a company that >consists almost entirely of people who used to work at Fidelity. Fidelity is >owned and controlled by its former arch enemy, Mephisto. The programmers who >were responsible for every sophisticated program marketed by Fidelity are now >working for Saitek, and the company that distributed Novag in the last year >(having taken that job over from Fidelity no less) has stopped doing so. You >can't even tell the players any more if you DO have a scorecard, and that is >just on the surface. > >Below the surface are the manufacturers in Hong Kong and China that create many >of the machines that are part of our industry. Some of these entities go in and >out of bankruptcies more than our very own U.S. air carriers. > >Nevertheless, getting back to the story. Some of you who have been following >computer chess for the last decade or so are familiar with and probably even may >own a rather nice and inexpensive little chess computer called the Excellence. > >The year was 1985 and Fidelity began touting the little bugger to its >distributors and retailers just as the year began - cautioning all along that it >would not become available until the August/September time frame. Everything >that Fidelity claimed about the "revolutionary" new computer seemed believable. >After all, even back then it was not so unusual for a chess computer to play >above the 2000 rating level. > >What WAS unbelievable, however, to us at I.C.D. at least, was that Fidelity said >THIS chess computer was going to SELL FOR UNDER $100!!!! > >Why such skepticism you ask. Well, the immediate predecessor to the Excellence >was a machine named the Sensory Challenger 9, a unit which was unanimously >believed to play at an 1800 level and cost the consumer about $170, so how was >it that six months later Fidelity could introduce a machine selling for close to >half the price and playing 200 points better! When I.C.D. posed the above >concerns to Fidelity in early 1985, we were assured that the Excellence was a >technological breakthrough and that we would receive samples of the unit for >testing purposes so that we could, in good faith, promote the product as playing >"over 2000". > >Frankly, having been inundated by exaggerated manufacturer's claims (certainly >not limited to just Fidelity - see some of my earlier "Pity the Poor Computer >Chess Buyer" articles in earlier Reports) for years prior to the Excellence >introduction, we were not inclined to believe the ratings estimates that >Fidelity was spewing forth. > >In February of 1985, we received a visit from the President and National Sales >Manager of Fidelity for the express purpose of promoting the coming introduction >of the Excellence. Further hoopla took place in June at the Chicago Consumer >Electronics Show. Here Fidelity at their booth showed to the trade >(distributors and retailers) the Excellence once again. And again made the >claim of "over 2000" playing strength. I.C.D. once again made it clear to >Fidelity that they would have to prove such claims before I.C.D. would associate >itself with such a claim. Once again promises of forthcoming test units were >made. > >Events began to heat up substantially when an ad for the Excellence appeared >from the U.S. Chess Federation in the month of May. Claims of strength >approaching 2000 were made in the ad, and when we saw the ad, we called both >Fidelity and the U.S.C.F to find out what proof existed of the claim especially >since no computers were yet manufactured. The answer from the Federation was >that "Fidelity told us it played that well"; Fidelity's answer was "it will play >that well". Nothing terribly scientific was done by anyone to validate these >claims. > >Now the pressure was on. People reading Chess Life were, for the first time, >being "informed" that a new product, the Excellence, was on the way, and one >could buy a close to 2000 rated unit for $99. Yes, it was an advertisement, but >it was a Chess Federation advertisement and to some people that was as good as >if the Almighty, himself, had ordained it. The fact that they did not have the >product, had never played the product, and did not know anything about the >program in the product, was unimportant. The Chess Federation said 2000 so it >WAS 2000. > >I.C.D. received loads of phone calls from the chess playing public who were less >likely to follow blindly what the advertisement was promoting (after all, they >were SELLING weren't they?). Our answer, was that we were highly skeptical, and >our recommendation was for everyone to wait until proper testing had taken >place. We think the great majority heeded our advice. > >When the deadline for the Chess Life issue coming out in June arrived, I.C.D. >decided it was time to promote the Excellence because even if it only played >1700, it was still the least expensive unit to ever do so, and therefore was >likely to be a best seller. > >We put an ad in that issue (still continuing to request samples of the >Excellence for testing from Fidelity and still not receiving any) proclaiming >that I.C.D. would guaranty that the unit would play "Over 1800 for Under $100". >Since the machine had a limited profit margin, we chose to have the Excellence >ad share a page with Scisys (now Saitek) TurboStar which we proclaimed played >"Over 2000 for under $200". We again ran the same ad to appear in the month of >July. > >As each ad showed, we received calls both from customers wanting to order the >product, and others wanting to know why our ads were proclaiming a rating 200 >points lower than the Federation's claim. Our answer: "the Excellence has not >been made available to anyone as of the time the ads were submitted and the >Federation chose to believe the manufacturer and we chose not to." > >The deadline for the issue appearing in August was fast approaching, and I.C.D. >chose, once again, to submit the same 1800 ad, but about two weeks after our ad >deadline for that issue, we got wind of a very interesting piece of news. >Fidelity had entered a unit at the U.S. Open in Florida that it claimed was the >Excellence. It was entered for the purpose of receiving a rating. > >This was a real curiosity for Fidelity for three reasons. The first curiosity >was that Fidelity never informed us that it was doing this (after all, we were >their biggest and best customer); the second was that if they could find their >way clear to produce 8 machines for this tournament, why couldn't they create 9 >of them and send one to us for testing; the third was that they were SELLING >MACHINES DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC - hundreds of machines right there being sold to >end users at THE VERY SAME TIME I.C.D. WAS BEING TOLD THAT IT COULD NOT RECEIVE >EVEN ONE UNIT FOR TESTING!!!!! Pretty weird, eh!? > >As the tournament went on, we were receiving daily reports from a customer, who >every morning would call us and relate the results of the night before, and were >so disparaged by Fidelity's inability or unwillingness to supply us with test >Excellences that we had him buy units at the tournament and ship them to us. >More weirdness! > >Nevertheless, as the tournament progressed through the fourth and fifth day, we >learned two very interesting facts. First, the units performing there were not >doing terribly well. After the first five rounds, they had a provisional rating >of about 1900, but more importantly, due to some truly sleek detective work on >his part, we found out something that it appears Fidelity really did not want >anyone to know: the units performing at the tournament were operating at 8 >megahertz not the 3 megahertz of the commercially available units!!!!! > >As the story goes, when the person who was guarding the tournament machines with >his life, had to go to the men's room, he unknowingly asked our customer to >watch over the Excellences for him. The customer, knowing what we know about >faster units playing stronger than slower units, ran a mating problem on one of >the tournament machines, and it solved the problem 2.67 times faster than the >units being sold to the public at the tournament! > >We could now use this information to conclude that the commercially available >units were not even the 1900 that the tournament units were proving to be, but >about 1725 because they were running at a much slower speed. > >Having now realized that even our "Over 1800" ad was perhaps misleading, when >Chess Life called us that day to discuss some other issue, we requested that our >ad (which had been submitted some three weeks earlier) be changed to reflect our >newly found degradation. The discombobulated Chess Life representative agreed >that they would change the ad to reflect a new I.C.D. guaranty that the >Excellence would play "over 1725". > >One week before that "Over 1725" issue was mailed to the readers of Chess Life, >I.C.D. received a letter from Fidelity indicating that it understood that I.C.D. >was going to run an ad denigrating its new Excellence, and such a denigration >would be so damaging to the product that Fidelity would stand to lose millions >of dollars in sales. Well, since it was too late to stop the publication of the >ad - since the issue was already printed, and due to the fact that the games >played at the U.S. Open had borne out our estimate of 1725 or something not too >much higher, we did not feel any urgency in caving in and promising a 2000 >rating (which the Federation pretty much continued to do throughout this entire >process). > >Lo and behold, the ad appeared and so did a lawsuit from Fidelity claiming >damages of approximately 1.5 million dollars as a result of our ad. >Interestingly enough, it has always amazed us that our one ad which had not even >been in the hands of the readers for more than 10 days was responsible, >according to Fidelity, for all that damage, not to mention the fact that Chess >Life was only distributed to about 45,000 people and even if all of them were >turned off by our ad, Fidelity would not have lost such a large sum of money. > >However, this is America, and in America anyone can sue anyone for anything. > >I.C.D. stopped buying product from Fidelity and the two companies were not on >speaking terms for about two years until both realized that it was to the >economic benefit of both to go back to business as it had been before the >incident, but the situation moved inexorably toward trial with depositions taken >from all concerned including just about everyone from the Federation. And to >this date they have not divulged how it was that Fidelity knew about I.C.D.'s >"Over 1725" ad before it was even released from the printer. Nor has it been >adequately explained why ads from the Federation continued to boast the 2000 >rating and "Class A or better" despite evidence to the contrary. > >To make a very, very long story reasonably short, the trial date kept being put >back for one reason or another. Perhaps the federal judge in Fort Lauderdale, >Florida was of the opinion that his drug and murder trials took precedent over >our case. How silly! > >After 6 years of preparation, the trial took place. It lasted 3 1/2 weeks. >There were three lawyers for each side, and we have been told that the bill for >I.C.D.'s lawyers alone over the six years and 3 1/2 weeks was over $500,000. If >one were to add this to the bill for the Fidelity legal staff plus the money >that the U.S. spent on the judge, courtroom, bailiff, stenographer, court >officers, jurors, etc., it is likely that well over $1,000,000 was spent in >total. > >There were about 15 witnesses as well as a dozen or so depositions at the trial. > There were dozens of displays, exhibits, charts and hours and hours of >testimony from all involved including a rather long cameo appearance from Larry >Kaufman who was called upon as an expert. And the result? > >Well, after both sides had their closing arguments, the jury left to deliberate >the fate of the issue. Forty-five minutes later they returned with a verdict - >ICD was NOT guilty. > >20/20 hindsight is wonderful. Now after 7 years and 1000's of games, Excellence >3 MHz might possibly be an 1850-1900 performer, but in early 1985, I.C.D., I am >proud to say, went to extraordinary lengths to uncover the "truth" only to be >rewarded with an expensive and time consuming suit. > >So you thought the Chess Computer business was boring. Well, take it from one >who has been immersed in it for 15 years, things may be calm on the surface, but >there is ALWAYS something going on beneath - even now, but I will save that for >some future issue. >=================
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.