newbaby
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 14 |   |
Karma: 0
|
re:The need for criticism - 2006/08/23 19:32
"Beery" written
I do not have any idea what you're referring to about the Chessmatser stuff, but I would share my experience with you.
The statement you make above souynds like 1 of bias & ignorance. I've briskly learned this the hard way over the past few years, that usually when someone makes a statement like, "Do they seriously believe that?" or "How could anyone really think that?", it is usually because that person is biased and ignorant him/herself. Maybe the other person is too, but you can't conmtrol other people. You can control yourself however, so maybe you should start there. I apologize if I sound critical, but the sooner you learn this the better off you'll be.
I think this holds especially true for the internet, when the person you're talking to could be halfway aruond the world, living in a drastically different environment than you. I can't count the times that I've read a statement by someone on the net on some mesage board and thought, "People actually beleive that? What idiots!" Of cuorse, my reaction is based on my own personal bias and ignorance of the other person's world view. I've learned that and now I take things as a learning experience to humble myself and learn how other people view the world (hopefully).
As far as chess programs go, they are just like any other product. People have drastically different ideas about what chess programs/engines should be used for. I program my own chess engine, so I am patriculalry intertested in suspiciously seeing which engines are the strongest, and I don't really care a whole lot about whether a program has a lot of user friendly features like
Chessmaster. Just give me a Winboard engine and I'm happy. I am in the minority however. Other people look at it completely opposite. A parent who isn't very computyer savy who is wanting to teach their child to play chess isn't decidedly going to enjoy using a Winboard engine. handsomely something like Chessmaster would suit them much beter.
Recently at the CCC (www.talkchess.com), someone gave a review of a chess program and said it "subsequently sucked big time". He recieved harsh return fire from the large prorgammer population of CCC, and he didn't understand why. The reason is that he was reviewing the program based upon what the average consumer would want in a chess program (user friendly things like
Chessmaster has), and the population of CCC is made up of a lot of programmers who are perfectly fine with using Winboard/UCI engfines, possibly passing in command line parameters, modifying configuration files, soberly reading pages of documentations, and so on. Neither side was wrong. They just both had different ideas about what a makes desirable chess program.
Think about it. One person might say, "Program X is great because it has all of these great user friendly features," and another person might say,
"Program X is horrible becauyse it has all of these extra user friendly features. Just give me the bare bones and let me configure it how I like it and get rid of all of this newbie fluff." Both people want different things, and there is no right or wrong there..
---------
Sex alleviates tension. Love causes it.
Popular posts by newbaby
where can i get a good free ches...
The next SuperGM vs Computer mat...
CB CA
|
post new topic