Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:2123 rec.games.chess:5217 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!accucx!aceverj From: aceverj@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Jaap Verhage) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,rec.games.chess Subject: Re: Chess program recommendation wanted (for IBM) Message-ID: <773@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> Date: 28 Sep 90 22:24:39 GMT References: <1399@pedsga.UUCP> <6302@hub.ucsb.edu> <85.26ff813b@inland.com> <1990Sep27.121239.5258@cs.rochester.edu> <1990Sep28.194112.18406@cs.rochester.edu> Reply-To: aceverj@accucx.UUCP (Jaap Verhage) Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands Lines: 37 In article <1990Sep28.194112.18406@cs.rochester.edu> ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes: [...] >fact does not play 2100 rated chess proves my point. This false and >misleading advertising sells products. >There are very few comsumer items out there that can be given virtually >absolute numbers for comparison purposes. Cars can't, TV's can't, etc. >If Chevy says their car is better than Fords there is no real way to >prove it. It is just pure advertising bullshit. But chess computers can >be given fairly accurate ratings which tells the consumer which is best >and which is not. My point is that if a computer is not officially rated it >is a mere bag of shells and any claim to fame is pure misleading bullshit by >the companies and sometimes even by the owners themselves. >Comsumers should try and realize that not only are the oil companies and >Iraqs out to rip us off but also too are the chess computer manufacturers >with their false claims and misleading advertisments of their products. Whoa, whoa ... I believe that `the West' (the so-called `developed countries') has been `ripping off' `the East' and `the South' (the so-called `undeveloped' or `underdeveloped' countries) a whole lot more, and for a far longer time, than the other way around. However, as to misleading advertising, I completely agree. If I were the person in power (let's be glad I'm not), advertising per se would completely vanish and, let's say, `informising' would take its place. No-one would be allowed to claim anything that couldn't be easily proved. No-one would be allowed to make meaningless assertions like `we're the best' or `we make the best'. Imagine: how would it be to read a BYTE and simply to believe what the ads say? Not to need to filter the substantial information from all the hype? To me, that would be *quite* agreeable. What I want is information about a product, not fantasies intended to ram it down my throat. Oh, well; maybe I should go live on an uninhabited island? -- Regards, Jaap. Jaap Verhage, Academic Computer Centre, State University at Utrecht, Holland. aceverj@cc.ruu.nl +<-*|*->+ I claim *every*thing and speak for myself