Hiarcs 5 !!!

[Dirk Frickenschmidt]

Hi everybody,

I have been testing Hiarcs 5 for some days and will soon publish some
autoplayer games here. I began with a 20 games test suite against Rebel8.
Just to make you curious:

Although Hiarcs 5 does not - like for example Chess Genius 5 - solve nearly
any of the well known (mostly tactical) test positions, it solves many of
them quite a bit faster than Hiarcs 3 and 4 (I know the latter only within
the Fritz 4 surface). It's still one of the best prgs in endings.

But now what I liked most:

The games between Hiarcs 5 and Rebel 8 played so far were the most
attractive computer chess games I've seen in such matches since years!

I must admit I didn't like too much of the often planless, but highly
tactical computer moves of the last generations of computer chess programs.
Most games were simply terribly boring from a human point of view (I'm not
saying they were bad, because I know of course that machine chess has its
own reasons to be cknowledged even if the games seem somehow ugly to me). I
even sometimes wished back the times of good old Superconny. :-)

But now especially Hiarcs showed highly attractive attacking chess at a in
my eyes up to now rarely seen positional level! And after 16 games played
it seems it will even have the better score against Rebel 8, which
nevertheless played some very nice wins, too.

None of these two programs ever showed cooked books in these games. None of
the games became a draw. Not one of them was really boring for me, and some
of the games were really exciting.

If anybody of you has other testgames of Hiarcs 5 against other prgs
(Mchess 6, Genius 5, Fritz 3 etc.). please publish them here as soon as
possible (my match will probably come in some days).

I'm really appreciating what Mark Uniacke has done!

Yours Dirk!

[Enrique Irazoqui]

Dirk Frickenschmidt <di...@jimknopf.wupper.de> wrote in article
<01bbf584$dea27ea0$0927...@mail.wupper.de>...

> Although Hiarcs 5 does not - like for example Chess Genius 5 - solve
nearly
> any of the well known (mostly tactical) test positions, it solves many of
> them quite a bit faster than Hiarcs 3 and 4 (I know the latter only
within
> the Fritz 4 surface). It's still one of the best prgs in endings.

Hiarcs 5 is solving BT2630 a bit faster than Genius 5 and much faster than
Hiarcs 3 and 4.

> But now what I liked most:
>
> The games between Hiarcs 5 and Rebel 8 played so far were the most
> attractive computer chess games I've seen in such matches since years!

The games between Hiarcs 5 and Mchess 6 are not bad either.

> I'm really appreciating what Mark Uniacke has done!

So do I. H5 is great. I don't find the interface very attractive, though.
How about Hiarcs 5 with the GUI of Fritz?

Enrique

> Yours Dirk!

[Len]

Enrique Irazoqui wrote:

[snip]

>
> So do I. H5 is great. I don't find the interface very attractive, though.
> How about Hiarcs 5 with the GUI of Fritz?
>
> Enrique

Two questions:

1. When will the Hiarcs 5 add-on for Fritz 4 be available?

2. How much weaker will the H5 add-on play than Hiarcs for DOS?

Len

[sa...@svn.com.br]

In article <01bbf584$dea27ea0$0927...@mail.wupper.de>,

"Dirk Frickenschmidt" <di...@jimknopf.wupper.de> wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> I have been testing Hiarcs 5 for some days and will soon publish some
> autoplayer games here. I began with a 20 games test suite against Rebel8.
> Just to make you curious:

So you achieved it! I'm curious about these games! throw them to us!!

Thanks,

SAulo
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Jouni Uski]

It's unbelievable how good Hiarcs is, even if it is an amateur program!
I think that Ed, Marty, Richard etc. are fearing, that Mark will go to full
time (pro) programming...

Jouni Uski

[Enrique Irazoqui]

Len <sun...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in article
<32C6E8...@bellatlantic.net>...

> Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > So do I. H5 is great. I don't find the interface very attractive,
though.
> > How about Hiarcs 5 with the GUI of Fritz?
> >
> > Enrique
>
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1. When will the Hiarcs 5 add-on for Fritz 4 be available?

No idea. You will have to ask Mark and ChessBase.

> 2. How much weaker will the H5 add-on play than Hiarcs for DOS?

On a P120/32, the module of H4 for Fritz 4 seems to be about 10-15 points
weaker than H4 for DOS. This depends of course on the amount of ram.

Enrique

> Len
>

[MLK and RJP]

In article <32C6E8...@bellatlantic.net>, sun...@bellatlantic.net says...

>
>Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> So do I. H5 is great. I don't find the interface very attractive, though.
>> How about Hiarcs 5 with the GUI of Fritz?
>>
>> Enrique
>
>
>Two questions:
>
>1. When will the Hiarcs 5 add-on for Fritz 4 be available?

In the last e-mail I received from Mark Uniacke, he said, that he and
Chessbase were currently 'negotiating'. He mentioned 1997, but don;t quote me
on that.

>
>2. How much weaker will the H5 add-on play than Hiarcs for DOS?
>

>Len

I have no idea.

Note that you can purchase the hiarcs 4 module for Fritz and Chessbase. I have
it, and it plays very much like a strong human.

--
Robert Pawlak and
Michelle Kienholz
Chess widower's home page at:
http://members.aol.com/mlkienholz/chess.html

[Harald Faber]

Hello Dirk,

F> I have been testing Hiarcs 5 for some days and will soon publish some
F> autoplayer games here. I began with a 20 games test suite against Rebel8.
F> Just to make you curious:
F>
F> The games between Hiarcs 5 and Rebel 8 played so far were the most
F> attractive computer chess games I've seen in such matches since years!

Could you please post them in pgn-format?

F> But now especially Hiarcs showed highly attractive attacking chess at a
F> in my eyes up to now rarely seen positional level! And after 16 games

Don't forget Rebel and MCP which play excellent chess! It is no stupid
moving (most times... ;-)) like Fritz/Extreme Chess often does..

F> If anybody of you has other testgames of Hiarcs 5 against other prgs
F> (Mchess 6, Genius 5, Fritz 3 etc.). please publish them here as soon as
F> possible (my match will probably come in some days).

I admit I am curious about Hiarcs5 so I'd really like to see some games of
him. ANother important aspect is the copy-protection. In opposite to
almost all the other software-branches there is copy-protection in chess-
software.. :-((
So what kind of protection does the user find coming with Hiarcs5?
Is it still the old-fashioned 3-times-installation (that's why I won't buy
WChess which is absolutely interesting)?

F> I'm really appreciating what Mark Uniacke has done!

Don't you enjoy Rebel8?

Ciao and see ya
Harald
--

[mclane]

Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org (Harald Faber) wrote:

>Hello Dirk,

We will post and have posted so far...

>Could you please post them in pgn-format?

>F> But now especially Hiarcs showed highly attractive attacking chess at a
>F> in my eyes up to now rarely seen positional level! And after 16 games

>Don't forget Rebel and MCP which play excellent chess! It is no stupid
>moving (most times... ;-)) like Fritz/Extreme Chess often does..

RIGHTY RIGHT.

>F> If anybody of you has other testgames of Hiarcs 5 against other prgs
>F> (Mchess 6, Genius 5, Fritz 3 etc.). please publish them here as soon as
>F> possible (my match will probably come in some days).

>I admit I am curious about Hiarcs5 so I'd really like to see some games of
>him.

We are all heavily waiting for Hiarcs before any release has started.
Mark is a great chess programmer who know enough about chess himself
and understand the testers.

>F> I'm really appreciating what Mark Uniacke has done!

>Don't you enjoy Rebel8?

Yes, but Hiarcs is a littler more knowledged than Rebel is.
Rebel8 does knowledge by doing, hiarcs does knowledge by winning.

[Tord Kallqvist Romstad]

Harald Faber (Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org) wrote:
: Hello Dirk,

: F> I have been testing Hiarcs 5 for some days and will soon publish some
: F> autoplayer games here. I began with a 20 games test suite against Rebel8.
: F> Just to make you curious:
: F>
: F> The games between Hiarcs 5 and Rebel 8 played so far were the most
: F> attractive computer chess games I've seen in such matches since years!

: Could you please post them in pgn-format?

: F> But now especially Hiarcs showed highly attractive attacking chess at a
: F> in my eyes up to now rarely seen positional level! And after 16 games

: Don't forget Rebel and MCP which play excellent chess! It is no stupid
: moving (most times... ;-)) like Fritz/Extreme Chess often does..

: F> If anybody of you has other testgames of Hiarcs 5 against other prgs

: F> (Mchess 6, Genius 5, Fritz 3 etc.). please publish them here as soon as
: F> possible (my match will probably come in some days).

: I admit I am curious about Hiarcs5 so I'd really like to see some games of

: him. ANother important aspect is the copy-protection. In opposite to

: almost all the other software-branches there is copy-protection in chess-
: software.. :-((
: So what kind of protection does the user find coming with Hiarcs5?
: Is it still the old-fashioned 3-times-installation (that's why I won't buy
: WChess which is absolutely interesting)?

No. It is the same as Rebel8. Unlimited installs.

Tord

[Harald Faber]

Hello mclane,

m> From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
m> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 !!!
m> Organization: Prima e.V. Dortmund

m> >F> If anybody of you has other testgames of Hiarcs 5 against other prgs
m> >F> (Mchess 6, Genius 5, Fritz 3 etc.). please publish them here as soon as
m> >F> possible (my match will probably come in some days).

m> >I admit I am curious about Hiarcs5 so I'd really like to see some games of
m> >him.

m> We are all heavily waiting for Hiarcs before any release has started.
m> Mark is a great chess programmer who know enough about chess himself
m> and understand the testers.

Oh; are the posted games here from a beta-tester??

I am still interested in knowing about the copy-protection of Hiarcs5..
What can you say about this?
Again three times installation? 20? eternal? No? CD-Rom?

Harald
--

[Komputer Korner]

Glad to be of help. Since I was the last beta tester of the product,
the answer to your question is that there is an unlimited amount of
installs. You have to deinstall before defragmenting, or removing
Hiarcs from the hard disk.
--
Komputer Korner

The komputer that kouldn't keep a password safe from
prying eyes, kouldn't kompute the square root of 36^n,
kouldn't find the real Motive and variation tree in
ChessBase and missed the real learning feature of Nimzo.

[Harald Faber]

Hello Tord,

TKR> : So what kind of protection does the user find coming with Hiarcs5?
TKR> : Is it still the old-fashioned 3-times-installation (that's why I won't
TKR> buy : WChess which is absolutely interesting)?
TKR>
TKR> No. It is the same as Rebel8. Unlimited installs.
TKR> Tord

Hmmm, however we can live with it...

Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

Hello KomputerKorner,

KK> From: Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca>
KK> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 !!!
KK> Organization: Netcom Canada

KK> > I am still interested in knowing about the copy-protection of Hiarcs5..
KK> > What can you say about this?
KK> > Again three times installation? 20? eternal? No? CD-Rom?
KK> > Harald

KK> Glad to be of help. Since I was the last beta tester of the product,
KK> the answer to your question is that there is an unlimited amount of
KK> installs. You have to deinstall before defragmenting, or removing
KK> Hiarcs from the hard disk.
KK> Komputer Korner

Hmm, better than 3 or 20 installs or dongle but still worse than cd-rom.

I should have counted all the diskettes I threw away for they were damaged
by TIME.

Why don't we boykot this copy-protection? What makes programmers use such
old-fashioned and non-user-friendly system?
I for myself won't buy any kind of forecoming program with a copy-
protected diskette any more, no matter how strong it is.

Harald
--

[mclane]

Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org (Harald Faber) wrote:

>Hello mclane,

What is a beta test ? :-)

>Oh; are the posted games here from a beta-tester??

Hiarcs5 is sold. ASK Gambit Soft !

>I am still interested in knowing about the copy-protection of Hiarcs5..

>What can you say about this?

ASK Dirk Frickenschmidt.
Thanks.

>Again three times installation? 20? eternal? No? CD-Rom?

>Harald
>--

[Markus Seger]

Harald Faber <Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org> wrote in article
<663_970...@shadow.franken.de>...

> Hello KomputerKorner,
>
>
> KK> From: Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca>
> KK> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 !!!
> KK> Organization: Netcom Canada
>

> KK> > I am still interested in knowing about the copy-protection of
Hiarcs5..

> KK> > What can you say about this?
> KK> > Again three times installation? 20? eternal? No? CD-Rom?
> KK> > Harald
>
> KK> Glad to be of help. Since I was the last beta tester of the product,
> KK> the answer to your question is that there is an unlimited amount of
> KK> installs. You have to deinstall before defragmenting, or removing
> KK> Hiarcs from the hard disk.
> KK> Komputer Korner
>
> Hmm, better than 3 or 20 installs or dongle but still worse than cd-rom.
>
> I should have counted all the diskettes I threw away for they were
damaged
> by TIME.
>
> Why don't we boykot this copy-protection? What makes programmers use such

> old-fashioned and non-user-friendly system?
> I for myself won't buy any kind of forecoming program with a copy-
> protected diskette any more, no matter how strong it is.

I agree. I just purchased Rebel 8.0. They are using a copy-protection
mechanism which allows unlimited installs but which seems to access the
hard disk directly instead of using the documented DOS functions. Thus, it
doesn't run on Windows NT 4.0. Each time I want to play a little game or
analyse a position I have to reboot and launch DOS, which is very annoying!

This is another fine example that copy-protection only hurts the honest,
paying user. The pirate using a cracked version of Rebel 8.0 can enjoy it
under Windows NT!

Chess programmers: Please remove such silly copy-protection schemes!!

Regards,
Markus

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Markus Seger
Shareware Development Behringstr. 22a
voice: +49-6898-62321 66346 Puettlingen
mailto:mse...@kagi.com Germany
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/5806
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Komputer Korner]

Harald Faber wrote:
>
snipped

> Why don't we boykot this copy-protection? What makes programmers use such
> old-fashioned and non-user-friendly system?
> I for myself won't buy any kind of forecoming program with a copy-
> protected diskette any more, no matter how strong it is.
>

> Harald
> --

Well then Harald you had better stop commenting on all the programs
you won't own because copy protection won't stop until all programs are
on a CD-ROM, and even then there will be some sort of protection against
all the pirates.

[Harald Faber]

Hello mclane,

m> What is a beta test ? :-)

Don't know, think s.th. CB had to do with Fritz4 and Mindscape had to do
with CM5000. :-)

m> >Oh; are the posted games here from a beta-tester??
m> Hiarcs5 is sold. ASK Gambit Soft !

Yeah, I recently read it in the Rochade Europa..

m> >I am still interested in knowing about the copy-protection of Hiarcs5..
m> >What can you say about this?

m> ASK Dirk Frickenschmidt.
m> Thanks.

He recently informed me. Now I know.

Harald
--

[Komputer Korner]

Markus Seger wrote:
>

> I agree. I just purchased Rebel 8.0. They are using a copy-protection
> mechanism which allows unlimited installs but which seems to access the
> hard disk directly instead of using the documented DOS functions. Thus, it
> doesn't run on Windows NT 4.0. Each time I want to play a little game or
> analyse a position I have to reboot and launch DOS, which is very annoying!
>
> This is another fine example that copy-protection only hurts the honest,
> paying user. The pirate using a cracked version of Rebel 8.0 can enjoy it
> under Windows NT!
>
> Chess programmers: Please remove such silly copy-protection schemes!!
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Markus Seger
> Shareware Development Behringstr. 22a
> voice: +49-6898-62321 66346 Puettlingen
> mailto:mse...@kagi.com Germany
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/5806
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sure that Ed Schroder would like to know how Rebel 8 can be
cracked by a pirate.

[Harald Faber]

Hi Markus,

MS> From: "Markus Seger" <m.s...@ids-scheer.de>
MS> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 + copy protection
MS> Organization: IDS Prof. Scheer GmbH

MS> > Why don't we boykot this copy-protection? What makes programmers use
MS> > such
MS> > old-fashioned and non-user-friendly system?
MS> > I for myself won't buy any kind of forecoming program with a copy-
MS> > protected diskette any more, no matter how strong it is.

MS> I agree. I just purchased Rebel 8.0. They are using a copy-protection
MS> mechanism which allows unlimited installs but which seems to access the
MS> hard disk directly instead of using the documented DOS functions. Thus,

I got it too.

MS> it doesn't run on Windows NT 4.0. Each time I want to play a little game
MS> or analyse a position I have to reboot and launch DOS, which is very
MS> annoying!

Lately I installed a second CD-rom-drive, DIDN'T START MCP5, removed the
CD-ROM-drive so that finally nothing changed on my system, but MCP5 denied
to start. Nice copy-protection. :-((

MS> Chess programmers: Please remove such silly copy-protection schemes!!
MS>
MS> Regards,
MS> Markus

Shall we make a list to subscribe who and how many people dislike c.p. ?
:-)

1.Markus Seger
2.Harald Faber

Who is third? :-)

Tschuessikowski
Harald

--

[Harald Faber]

KK> From: Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca>

KK> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 + copy protection
KK> Organization: Netcom Canada

KK> > Why don't we boykot this copy-protection? What makes programmers use
KK> > such old-fashioned and non-user-friendly system?
KK> > I for myself won't buy any kind of forecoming program with a copy-
KK> > protected diskette any more, no matter how strong it is.
KK> > Harald

KK> Well then Harald you had better stop commenting on all the programs

Hmm, do you sell programs? Just supposing. :-)

KK> you won't own because copy protection won't stop until all programs are
KK> on a CD-ROM, and even then there will be some sort of protection against
KK> all the pirates.
KK> Komputer Korner

Oh come on, if some more people boykot buying I am sure the programmers
must react and remove c.p.
A CD-Rom may be protected, I don't know if this is possible. But this is
not the point. A CD-rom is much more reliable and durable than a bloody
3.5"diskette.

Tschuessikowski
Harald

--

[Robert Hyatt]

Komputer Korner (kor...@netcom.ca) wrote:
: Markus Seger wrote:
: >

: > I agree. I just purchased Rebel 8.0. They are using a copy-protection
: > mechanism which allows unlimited installs but which seems to access the
: > hard disk directly instead of using the documented DOS functions. Thus, it
: > doesn't run on Windows NT 4.0. Each time I want to play a little game or
: > analyse a position I have to reboot and launch DOS, which is very annoying!

: >
: > This is another fine example that copy-protection only hurts the honest,
: > paying user. The pirate using a cracked version of Rebel 8.0 can enjoy it
: > under Windows NT!

: >
: > Chess programmers: Please remove such silly copy-protection schemes!!
: >
: > Regards,

: > Markus
: >
: > --------------------------------------------------------------------
: > Markus Seger
: > Shareware Development Behringstr. 22a
: > voice: +49-6898-62321 66346 Puettlingen
: > mailto:mse...@kagi.com Germany
: > http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/5806
: > --------------------------------------------------------------------

: I am sure that Ed Schroder would like to know how Rebel 8 can be
: cracked by a pirate.
: --

There is no copy protection scheme that can't be cracked, *by definition*
because it is all software embedded in the program. I've done it many
times to avoid having to carry a floppy around, not to pirate software. It
is most annoying and I no longer buy anything that requires the original disk
to run, or that requires a cheat sheet to respond to arcane questions. I just
keep looking. If enough do this, the problem will be solved. The smart guys
will get rid of it, the idiots will go out of business...

[Komputer Korner]

Robert Hyatt wrote:
>

> : I am sure that Ed Schroder would like to know how Rebel 8 can be
> : cracked by a pirate.
> : --
>
> There is no copy protection scheme that can't be cracked, *by definition*
> because it is all software embedded in the program. I've done it many
> times to avoid having to carry a floppy around, not to pirate software. It
> is most annoying and I no longer buy anything that requires the original disk
> to run, or that requires a cheat sheet to respond to arcane questions. I just
> keep looking. If enough do this, the problem will be solved. The smart guys
> will get rid of it, the idiots will go out of business...

You forgot about the dongle.

[Markus Seger]

Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

> There is no copy protection scheme that can't be cracked, *by definition*
> because it is all software embedded in the program. I've done it many
> times to avoid having to carry a floppy around, not to pirate software.
It
> is most annoying and I no longer buy anything that requires the original
disk
> to run, or that requires a cheat sheet to respond to arcane questions. I
just
> keep looking. If enough do this, the problem will be solved. The smart
guys
> will get rid of it, the idiots will go out of business...

Yeah, don't buy software with silly copy-protection! The problem is, you
have to know it in advance. I downloaded the Rebel 7 Demo and it ran fine
on both Windows 95 and Windows NT. I assumed the full version would do the
same ;-(

Well, I hope that Ed belongs to the smart guys and removes his
copy-protection from Rebel 9...

Markus

[Ed Schröder]

"Markus Seger" <m.s...@ids-scheer.de> wrote:

>Yeah, don't buy software with silly copy-protection! The problem is, you
>have to know it in advance. I downloaded the Rebel 7 Demo and it ran fine
>on both Windows 95 and Windows NT. I assumed the full version would
>do the same ;-(

True, Rebel8 does not run on Win NT... :(

>Well, I hope that Ed belongs to the smart guys and removes his
>copy-protection from Rebel 9...

Yes, Ed is smart...

Any new Rebel software will be Cdrom only.

- Ed -

>Markus

[Robert Hyatt]

Komputer Korner (kor...@netcom.ca) wrote:
: Robert Hyatt wrote:
: >

: > : I am sure that Ed Schroder would like to know how Rebel 8 can be
: > : cracked by a pirate.
: > : --

: >
: > There is no copy protection scheme that can't be cracked, *by definition*

: > because it is all software embedded in the program. I've done it many
: > times to avoid having to carry a floppy around, not to pirate software. It
: > is most annoying and I no longer buy anything that requires the original disk
: > to run, or that requires a cheat sheet to respond to arcane questions. I just
: > keep looking. If enough do this, the problem will be solved. The smart guys
: > will get rid of it, the idiots will go out of business...

: You forgot about the dongle.
: --
: Komputer Korner

: The komputer that kouldn't keep a password safe from
: prying eyes, kouldn't kompute the square root of 36^n,
: kouldn't find the real Motive and variation tree in
: ChessBase and missed the real learning feature of Nimzo.

The dongle can be cracked. Software probes this to check for a signature of
some sort. The probe can be defeated just as easily as a probe to a floppy to
be sure that cylinder N, head M, sector X is bad (typically has a hole burned in
it, for example). I've done this once, with a good bit of work, because the damn
dongle broke the parallel port connector on my old Compaq 386SL notebook, sticking
out the back while laying in my lap. Every move by me would strain that dongle
"upward" and the DB25 let go one evening. I have not, and will *never* buy another
piece of software with a dongle. I avoid at all costs software that is copy
protected. If I'm not trusted, that's the "seller's choice" and it's going to be
the "seller's loss" too... <period>

If enough adopt that attitude, this problem goes away...

[Harald Faber]

Hello Robert,

RH> From: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
RH> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 + copy protection
RH> Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

RH> : I am sure that Ed Schroder would like to know how Rebel 8 can be
RH> : cracked by a pirate.
RH> : --

RH> There is no copy protection scheme that can't be cracked, *by definition*
RH> because it is all software embedded in the program. I've done it many
RH> times to avoid having to carry a floppy around, not to pirate software.
RH> It is most annoying and I no longer buy anything that requires the
RH> original disk to run, or that requires a cheat sheet to respond to arcane
RH> questions. I just keep looking. If enough do this, the problem will be
RH> solved. The smart guys will get rid of it, the idiots will go out of
RH> business...

Applause!
What a pity I am not able to patch the programs FOR ME and on my own, but
be sure I WILL BOYKOT buying programs with COPY-PROTECTION.

Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

Hello Komputer,

KK> From: Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca>
KK> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 + copy protection
KK> Organization: Netcom Canada

KK> > There is no copy protection scheme that can't be cracked, *by
KK> > definition* because it is all software embedded in the program. I've
KK> > done it many times to avoid having to carry a floppy around, not to
KK> > pirate software. It is most annoying and I no longer buy anything that
KK> > requires the original disk to run, or that requires a cheat sheet to
KK> > respond to arcane questions. I just keep looking. If enough do this,
KK> > the problem will be solved. The smart guys will get rid of it, the
KK> > idiots will go out of business...
KK>
KK> You forgot about the dongle.

It is also protection. :-)

Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

Hello "Markus,

MS> From: Markus Seger <m.s...@ids-scheer.de>
MS> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 + copy protection
MS> Organization: IDS Prof. Scheer GmbH

MS> Well, I hope that Ed belongs to the smart guys and removes his
MS> copy-protection from Rebel 9...
MS> Markus

Hehe, you are a dreamer. :-)

Harald
--

[lensp...@aol.com]

In article <884_970...@shadow.franken.de>,
Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org (Harald Faber) writes:

>
>Oh come on, if some more people boykot buying I am sure the programmers
>must react and remove c.p.
>A CD-Rom may be protected, I don't know if this is possible. But this is

>not the point. A CD-rom is much more reliable and durable than a bloody
>3.5"diskette.

There is one way to c.p. a CD-ROM installation, and Chessmaster 4000 Turbo
MPC uses it: it requires the CD be in the drive when you start it up.

[Harald Faber]

Hello Robert,

RH> From: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
RH> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 + copy protection
RH> Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

RH> The dongle can be cracked. Software probes this to check for a signature

Uh, I have heard of dongles with RAM inside that is said to be very hard
to crack.

RH> of some sort. The probe can be defeated just as easily as a probe to a
RH> floppy to be sure that cylinder N, head M, sector X is bad (typically has
RH> a hole burned in it, for example). I've done this once, with a good bit
RH> of work, because the damn dongle broke the parallel port connector on my

Imagine you must move your computer 1 metre from the wall just because of
5 or more dongles sticking in your parallel port.. =:-(((

RH> evening. I have not, and will *never* buy another piece of software with
RH> a dongle. I avoid at all costs software that is copy protected. If I'm

That's what I promised myself on new year's day. :-)

And now I am absolutely convinced to keep on. Last time I installed a
second CD-Rom-drive for 2 hours, in these 2 hours DIDN'T START MCP5,
removed the CD-Rom-drive and its drivers so that the configuration was the
same as before, but MCP5 didn't start. Advice from Marty was to try PRMOVE
which of course didn't work and worse, must have crashed the original
diskette so that I wasn't able to install MCP5 again. Now I have to send
back the diskette to my dealer and beg for a new one. How I hate it. Never
again!

RH> not trusted, that's the "seller's choice" and it's going to be the
RH> "seller's loss" too... <period>
RH> If enough adopt that attitude, this problem goes away...

I hope others do so as well.
But I fear we are the minority. :-(((

Harald
--

[Mike Leahy]

Komputer Korner wrote:
>
> Harald Faber wrote:
> >
> snipped
> > Why don't we boykot this copy-protection? What makes programmers use such
> > old-fashioned and non-user-friendly system?

> > I for myself won't buy any kind of forecoming program with a copy-

> > protected diskette any more, no matter how strong it is.
> >

> > Harald
> > --

>
> Well then Harald you had better stop commenting on all the programs

> you won't own because copy protection won't stop until all programs are

> on a CD-ROM, and even then there will be some sort of protection against

> all the pirates.
> --
> Komputer Korner

I respectfully disagree.

The most successful chess programs such as Chessmaster
will have no copy protection -- and their sales would
suffer if they added it.

Even BOOKUP does quite alright without ever having
copy protection.

I also feel that Fritz built quite a market because
of a single version that had no protection. You would
think other serious chess programmers would take note.

Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!" http://www.coil.com/~bookup/

[Harald Faber]

Hello lenspencer,

l> From: lensp...@aol.com
l> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 + copy protection
l> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

l> >Oh come on, if some more people boykot buying I am sure the programmers
l> >must react and remove c.p.
l> >A CD-Rom may be protected, I don't know if this is possible. But this is
l> >not the point. A CD-rom is much more reliable and durable than a bloody
l> >3.5"diskette.
l>
l> There is one way to c.p. a CD-ROM installation, and Chessmaster 4000 Turbo
l> MPC uses it: it requires the CD be in the drive when you start it up.

Maybe you are right, I am not sure although I have CM400 somewhere here
but didn't use it for some time...
However this is also not the best solution but I could live with that
better than with the damn diskettes.

Harald
--

[Tim Mirabile]

lensp...@aol.com wrote:

>In article <884_970...@shadow.franken.de>,
>Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org (Harald Faber) writes:
>
>>

>>Oh come on, if some more people boykot buying I am sure the programmers

>>must react and remove c.p.

>>A CD-Rom may be protected, I don't know if this is possible. But this is
>

>>not the point. A CD-rom is much more reliable and durable than a bloody

>>3.5"diskette.

>
>There is one way to c.p. a CD-ROM installation, and Chessmaster 4000 Turbo

>MPC uses it: it requires the CD be in the drive when you start it up.

Entire CD-ROM's can be copied to today's multi-gig hard drives, and drivers
exist that precisely simulate the CD-ROM's behavior.

--
Tim Mirabile <t...@mail.htp.com> - http://www.webcom.com/timm/
Visit my homepage for information on USCF & FIDE rated chess on Long Island.
TimM on the Free Internet Chess Server - telnet://fics.onenet.net:5000/
Webmaster, tech support - ICD/Your Move Chess & Games: http://www.icdchess.com/
The opinions of my employers are not necessarily mine, and vice versa.

[Randall Leroy Speaks]

In article <5bqnnp$8...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:

[some of the original stuff snipped]

>The dongle can be cracked. Software probes this to check for a signature of
>some sort. The probe can be defeated just as easily as a probe to a floppy to
>be sure that cylinder N, head M, sector X is bad (typically has a hole burned in
>it, for example). I've done this once, with a good bit of work, because the damn
>dongle broke the parallel port connector on my old Compaq 386SL notebook, sticking
>out the back while laying in my lap. Every move by me would strain that dongle

>"upward" and the DB25 let go one evening. I have not, and will *never* buy another
>piece of software with a dongle. I avoid at all costs software that is copy
>protected. If I'm not trusted, that's the "seller's choice" and it's going to be
>the "seller's loss" too... <period>

>
>If enough adopt that attitude, this problem goes away...

I have the same attitude as Dr Hyatt. I will never again buy copy protected
chess software. I realized this day I installed my first copy of Chess
Genius 2.0 This was the first time I encountered copy protected chess
software. I already had Zarkov and Chessmaster. When I found out Genius
was copy protected (it was a Xmas gift from my wife, who knew I would love
to have the stronger programs and did it without my knowledge) I called the
distributor where it was purchased and asked them what happens if my hard
drive crashes like hard drives do sometimes and I eventually lose my two
tokens for the program. The reply was 'I'm sorry, sir, there is nothing
we can do except sell you another copy of Genius for half price.' Never
again. Period. Genius is great. Richard Lang is one of the best. All the
existing chess programs are great works. All the authors of these great
programs I respect and admire. But I have heard every argument under the
sun why programmers should be able to do this. Fine. But don't expect me
to spend my hard-earned money on a piece of software that is vulnerable
to the dangers that every computer system is vulnerable to. That is why
computer systems spends millions every day on backing up data. The
consumer's best interests Must be respected or your best interests, as
the programmer will eventually be destroyed, or at least damaged, in the
long run.

my 2 pennies on the matter, officially pronouncing me on the
'never again' list :)

cheers,
Randy

[Randall Leroy Speaks]

In article <32E3B1...@coil.com>, Mike Leahy <boo...@coil.com> wrote:

>Komputer Korner wrote:
>> Well then Harald you had better stop commenting on all the programs
>> you won't own because copy protection won't stop until all programs are
>> on a CD-ROM, and even then there will be some sort of protection against

>> all the pirates. Komputer Korner

>I respectfully disagree.
>
>The most successful chess programs such as Chessmaster
>will have no copy protection -- and their sales would
>suffer if they added it.
>
>Even BOOKUP does quite alright without ever having
>copy protection.
>
>I also feel that Fritz built quite a market because
>of a single version that had no protection. You would
>think other serious chess programmers would take note.
>
>Mike Leahy
>"The Database Man!" http://www.coil.com/~bookup/

amen, Mike. Bookup and Chessmaster are both living proof
that many, if not most, consumers can be trusted. I have not
and never will pass my copy of Bookup 7 around. My problem is
just coming up with the money to upgrade my favorite programs (grin).

cheers,
Randy

[mclane]

>cheers,
>Randy

No - copy protection is nessesary to help the programmers to get the
money for their products.

Without copy-protection many people would copy it and destroy the
whole market.

If you know the programmers, you will find out that they are nice guys
and that they have the right to get the money, because they have done
a good job.

Copy protections are really a stable stuff.
I never had problems with it.
And when I do have problems, the company I have bought the
chess-program sends me a repaired disk within a week.

Sorry, but I have different opinion than you have due to different
experience.

[Tom C. Kerrigan]

Tim Mirabile (t...@mail.htp.com) wrote:

> Entire CD-ROM's can be copied to today's multi-gig hard drives, and drivers
> exist that precisely simulate the CD-ROM's behavior.

And entire CD-ROM's can be copied to CD-ROM's...

I would be surprised if this hasn't become common...

Cheers,
Tom

[Robert Hyatt]

mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:

: >cheers,
: >Randy

you simply need to buy yourself a notebook computer, and use it on a day to
day basis like many of us do. Let's try the list:

1. dongles are simply obnoxious appendages that must be attached to the back
of a notebook. They stick out and if you use the machine as a "laptop" machine,
you exert pressure on this. I broke the parallel port db25 on a compaq notebook
doing this. However, the beauty of a notebook is "whuppin' it out and getting
something done, whether that something is leisure or work." Having to "whup
out the notebook, then whup out the dongle, and then put up with this thing
that makes it somewhat awkward to use" is a pain... and I won't do it any
more, period.

2. cdrom. great if your machine has one. not-so-great if it doesn't. Or,
if you are like me the cdrom can be replaced by a battery, but then you can't
run a program that demands a cdrom plugged in.

3. floppy. not obnoxious, but a terribly unreliable device. I don't want to
carry a floppy for each software package I buy, that's the reason for the large
(800+mb) hard drives on today's notebooks...

As a programmer you have two choices:

1. assume I'm a thief and make me take awkward steps to run your software. I'm
going to assume you are an idiot and I'm not buying your product. We both lose.

2. assume I'm honest. I buy what I use, and I don't let others copy it. You
win, I win.

Therefore, to sell to me, it's not going to have a dongle, require a CDRom drive
all the time, nor require me to carry a floppy around. Copy only (tokenized
protection) is barely acceptable, but, thankfully it can be cracked easily.
The physical protection schemes are more difficult to crack, but will cause me to
pass that product over.

This is the comments of only *one* potential customer. Protect what/when/where/how
you want, fortunately I get the final say...

[Joe Stella]

mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:

>No - copy protection is nessesary to help the programmers to get the
>money for their products.

>Without copy-protection many people would copy it and destroy the
>whole market.

>[...]

You are saying two things here:

1) Many users who buy a product will give out copies.

2) The people who receive these pirated copies would have purchased
the software from a dealer if they could not get the pirated version.

I can raise objections to both assuptions.

1) If I care enough about chess to purchase a $150 product, I will probably
want to see updates and improvements come out. I know I will not see this
if I pirate the software, so I don't do it. Give your customers credit for
a little intelligence at least!

2) Most people who get pirated copies of software are not interested in
purchasing it. That's why they look for free copies. If you just do
(number of pirated copies) x price = dollars lost, then your "dollars
lost" figure is way (and I mean *way*) too high.

Now if you factor in the number of sales $$ lost because of the people who
don't like copy protection, then does it *really* benefit the programmer?

Joe Stella

[mclane]

no_jun...@here.com (Joe Stella) wrote:

> mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:

>>No - copy protection is nessesary to help the programmers to get the
>>money for their products.

>>Without copy-protection many people would copy it and destroy the
>>whole market.
>>[...]

>You are saying two things here:

>1) Many users who buy a product will give out copies.

>2) The people who receive these pirated copies would have purchased
>the software from a dealer if they could not get the pirated version.

>I can raise objections to both assuptions.

>1) If I care enough about chess to purchase a $150 product, I will probably
>want to see updates and improvements come out. I know I will not see this
>if I pirate the software, so I don't do it. Give your customers credit for
>a little intelligence at least!

You can copy the updates from the FRIENDS the same way you copied the
first-release !! If a friend has hiarcs4 engine for Fritz4 and I have
fritz4 too, any person could copy hiarcs4-engine for fritz ! Point
taken ?!
If now the same guy buys or updates to hiarcs5 engine for fritz4, he
can give me the another copy of it.
All in all hiarcs is not sold !

I don't want to declare people to be stupid. This is not my intention.
You misunderstand the tone of my words.

I am not flaming pirates. My only objection is that I like the
programmers and their products more than I like the pirates.
Nothing about intelligence, nothing about flames. Just different
degrees of sympathy !!

>2) Most people who get pirated copies of software are not interested in
>purchasing it. That's why they look for free copies. If you just do
>(number of pirated copies) x price = dollars lost, then your "dollars
>lost" figure is way (and I mean *way*) too high.

Thats right.

>Now if you factor in the number of sales $$ lost because of the people who
>don't like copy protection, then does it *really* benefit the programmer?

> Joe Stella

My point is, that I have no problems with copy-protected softeware at
all despite from ChessMachine The King 2.2
CHESSBASE WIN 1.0 and W-Chess because in both systems the copy
protections is not refreshable and not to deinstall.

All other programs give you many tokens, unlimited installs or tokens
that can be deinstalled. That should be enough.

IMO- I don't force anybody to see it different.

Maybe I am not objective because I want that the programmers get
enough money to LIVE because I like them so live in peace and joy.

Sorry.

[Harald Faber]

quoting a mail from hyatt # cis.uab.edu

Hello Robert,

RH> From: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
RH> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 + copy protection
RH> Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

RH> As a programmer you have two choices:
RH>
RH> 1. assume I'm a thief and make me take awkward steps to run your
RH> software. I'm going to assume you are an idiot and I'm not buying your
RH> product. We both lose.

Not necessairily. MAYBE you wouldn't even have bought the program so the
programmer doesn't lose anything. but the programmer has the chance to get
money when the illegal copy excites the customer so that he now decides to
buy one legal copy to appreciate the programmers' work.

Of course this will only happen *if the prize is OK for what you get*. ;-)

RH> cracked easily. The physical protection schemes are more difficult to
RH> crack, but will cause me to pass that product over.

RH> This is the comments of only *one* potential customer. Protect

Now I think we can found a lobby. :-)
Count and you will see that there are more than you and me. :-)

RH> what/when/where/how you want, fortunately I get the final say...

:-)

Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

quoting a mail from rls2497 # mulder.tamu.edu

Hello Randall,

RLS> From: rls...@mulder.tamu.edu (Randall Leroy Speaks)
RLS> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 + copy protection
RLS> Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

RLS> my 2 pennies on the matter, officially pronouncing me on the
RLS> 'never again' list :)
RLS> Randy

OK, let me start. :-)

Never again list
-----------------
1. Harald Faber (no dongle and no c.p. diskettes) ;-)
2. Robert Hyatt ( ?? ) :-)
3. Randall Leroy (is Speaks really your name?)
4.
5.

.
.
to be continued :-)

Harald
--

[Harald Faber]

quoting a mail from kerrigan # merlin.pn.org

Hello Tom,

TCK> From: kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan)
TCK> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 + copy protection
TCK> Organization: Pendragon Network, Germany

TCK> > Entire CD-ROM's can be copied to today's multi-gig hard drives, and
TCK> > drivers exist that precisely simulate the CD-ROM's behavior.
TCK>
TCK> And entire CD-ROM's can be copied to CD-ROM's...
TCK> I would be surprised if this hasn't become common...

I am sure there are enough possibilities to protect them but I could
better live with CD's than with diskettes.

Harald
--

[Joe Stella]

mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:

>You can copy the updates from the FRIENDS the same way you copied the
>first-release !! If a friend has hiarcs4 engine for Fritz4 and I have
>fritz4 too, any person could copy hiarcs4-engine for fritz ! Point
>taken ?!

No, to tell the truth I cannot understand your meaning at all. Perhaps
we are having a language problem.

>[...]

>I don't want to declare people to be stupid. This is not my intention.
>You misunderstand the tone of my words.

If someone is standing beside me but I don't know it, I might accidently
reach out my arm and hit him in the face. Maybe I didn't intend to,
but it hurts him just as much anyway.

What you intend to do doesn't count. What you *are* doing is what counts.

>[...]

>Maybe I am not objective because I want that the programmers get
>enough money to LIVE because I like them so live in peace and joy.

I want the same thing. That is not what we are disputing here.

What we *are* disputing is whether copy protection really helps the
programmers accomplish this goal. You say "yes", I say "no". I can't
convince you, or anyone else, but I can do the same thing that many
other people are doing; I can refrain from purchasing copy-protected
software because I just don't want to put up with the hassle.

Joe Stella
jo...@ultranet.com

[Stefan Meyer-Kahlen]

no_jun...@here.com (Joe Stella) wrote:

(posting deleted)

Sorry, this is off-topic, but I really like your email address :-)

Stefan

[Robert Hyatt]

Harald Faber (Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org) wrote:

: quoting a mail from hyatt # cis.uab.edu

: Hello Robert,

: RH> From: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)

: RH> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 + copy protection
: RH> Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

: RH> As a programmer you have two choices:
: RH>
: RH> 1. assume I'm a thief and make me take awkward steps to run your
: RH> software. I'm going to assume you are an idiot and I'm not buying your
: RH> product. We both lose.

: Not necessairily. MAYBE you wouldn't even have bought the program so the
: programmer doesn't lose anything. but the programmer has the chance to get
: money when the illegal copy excites the customer so that he now decides to
: buy one legal copy to appreciate the programmers' work.

: Of course this will only happen *if the prize is OK for what you get*. ;-)

: RH> cracked easily. The physical protection schemes are more difficult to
: RH> crack, but will cause me to pass that product over.

: RH> This is the comments of only *one* potential customer. Protect

: Now I think we can found a lobby. :-)

: Count and you will see that there are more than you and me. :-)

: RH> what/when/where/how you want, fortunately I get the final say...

: :-)

: Harald
: --
I agree that it's a complex issue. However, I'd be willing to bet that
the vendor that goes out of his way to make things pleasant for the end
user is the vendor that's going to benefit from lots of sales. I like
companies that help. If I run into a snag or two with one, I simply move
on to save time...

Which is better, selling 5,000 copies that absolutely can't be stolen,
or selling 25,000 copies knowing someone is going to steal another 10,000
without your knowing? I like 25000 X $N as opposed to 5000 X $N myself.
Whether this is the right multiple is debatable, and whether this is the
right "stolen percentage" is also "open"...

[Bill Newton]

In article <5crs9j$9...@decius.ultra.net>, Joe Stella
<no_jun...@here.com> writes

>What we *are* disputing is whether copy protection really helps the
>programmers accomplish this goal.

And should not the Programmers themselves be the judge of this, on an
individual basis if they feel it necessary?

> You say "yes", I say "no". I can't
>convince you, or anyone else, but I can do the same thing that many
>other people are doing; I can refrain from purchasing copy-protected
>software because I just don't want to put up with the hassle.

Yes Joe, but you have to accept that many folk also do what 'many other
people' are doing i.e. they continue to buy Programmers updated albeit
copy protected work, and revel in using the always welcome new features.

In my view If some people choose to cut their nose off to spite their
face by not buying 'copy protected'........ well that's their privilege.
But they're sure missing out on a lot of good stuff.

However I often wonder whether such noseless folk really understand
the 'principle' they are advocating.

Well, to test the principles of the 'I wont buy 'copy protected' brigade
I ask them to take a mental leap and assume that a new Programme comes
on the market that has ten times the features of ChessMaster 5000 and is
so strong that it wipes the floor with Kasparov 10-0 whilst
simultaneously taking Omar Sharif apart in a Bridge shootout.....or, if
you dont like the foregoing description, just assume that this imaginary
programme is 'everything' 'you' ever wanted to see in a chess programme.

Its cost? lets say 10 quid or 15 dollars.

It also has 'copy protection' built in.

Would the noseless folk buy it?..............after all, the programme IS
'copy protected' so if they buy it they have to pocket their principles
and put up with the 'hassle' of 'copy protection' for the pleasure of
owning such a beast!

Oh the dilemma! do they hold tightly on to their principles and continue
all of their analysing activities etc;etc; with a comparatively puny
unprotected progamme? Leaving those of us who have retained our noses to
spend many happy hours with our new powerful programme, analysing like
you've never ever seen before....... or, as the noseless folks
principles warp and transform themselves into a completely different
argument, do those same folk quietly replace their noses and go buy the
beastie?

I know what I think!

Me? I'll continue to buy any programme I see fit, be it with or without
copy protection, even though I still lose consistently to my early Fritz
model. ( Yep, I do own Fritz 4 as well!)

Regards.
--
Bill Newton

[Joe Stella]

Bill Newton <not...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>And should not the Programmers themselves be the judge of this, on an
>individual basis if they feel it necessary?

Sure. And I can be the judge of how I spend my money.

>Yes Joe, but you have to accept that many folk also do what 'many other
>people' are doing i.e. they continue to buy Programmers updated albeit
>copy protected work, and revel in using the always welcome new features.

If that's how they want to spend their money then that's up to them.

>In my view If some people choose to cut their nose off to spite their
>face by not buying 'copy protected'........ well that's their privilege.
>But they're sure missing out on a lot of good stuff.

OK, so I'm stupid according to you. That's your opinion. I will keep
some of my opinions to myself...

>However I often wonder whether such noseless folk really understand
>the 'principle' they are advocating.

Nah, of course not. Anyone who cuts off their nose is obviously *way*
too stupid to understand anything so complicated...

>Well, to test the principles of the 'I wont buy 'copy protected' brigade
>I ask them to take a mental leap and assume that a new Programme comes
>on the market that has ten times the features of ChessMaster 5000 and is
>so strong that it wipes the floor with Kasparov 10-0 whilst

>[...]

When a program like this comes out, I will think about it then.
Right now, I don't see any features in the new programs that
make me want to run out and get them.

>Oh the dilemma! do they hold tightly on to their principles and continue
>all of their analysing activities etc;etc; with a comparatively puny
>unprotected progamme? Leaving those of us who have retained our noses to

>[...]

>Regards.
>--
>Bill Newton

Oh yes, I take back all that I have said. You guys who kept your noses
are just too smart for me... :) :) :)

Joe Stella
jo...@ultranet.com

[Robert Hyatt]

Bill Newton (not...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <5ctm79$d...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>, Robert Hyatt
: <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> writes
: ...snip...
: >Which is better, selling 5,000 copies that absolutely can't be stolen,

: >or selling 25,000 copies knowing someone is going to steal another 10,000
: >without your knowing? I like 25000 X $N as opposed to 5000 X $N myself.
: >Whether this is the right multiple is debatable, and whether this is the
: >right "stolen percentage" is also "open"...

: Bob you surprise me putting forward this apparent non argument, it's so
: unlike you!

: Sheer postulation............... yes, of course 25000 x $n is preferable
: to 5000 x $n in one's pocket, but thats just speculation and could be a
: million miles from the truth. Unfortunately the way you have written
: your comments tends to obscure the manner in which you reach your
: opinion.

If you had read 2 more lines, I clearly pointed out that I didn't have a
decent estimate for either number. However, I do know that those that take
a strong interest in customer satisfaction tend to do better than those that
don't. That was my one and only point. That worrying about what is stolen
might be worse than letting it go and worrying about making aproduct that
your customers don't have to worry about...

: For example you write about the 'multiple' being 'debatable' and the
: 'stolen' percentage as 'open'. However it could be said that inasmuch as
: the 'facts' are unavailable, you've taken a stab in the dark and come up
: with a set of figures that conveniently support your view!

Yes I have, but it is an idea that is discussed in every marketing course you'll
ever take... customer satisfaction. If it's low, sales are low no matter what
the product. If it's high, the sales will be higher. Copy protection has the
effect of making it low. Read the complaints here. I simply pointed out that
that is a risk. Perhaps a risk that actually has a negative impact on total
sales and profit. *perhaps*...

: And so, your summing up comment:
: >I like 25000 X $N as opposed to 5000 X $N myself.

: is a remark that most folk would agree with, I mean if that WERE the
: case it would be plain common sense to agree wouldn't it?

: However, on the basis that most Programmers currently utilising 'copy
: protection' have their fair share of commom sense do you wonder why
: 'they' appear not to agree, especially as you imply that they would
: increase their sales five fold by simply removing 'copy protection'!?

Yes I wonder, because I wrote this post to extract an explanation. I think
many do it because "everyone else does it." Or they don't sell nearly as
many as they'd like, and are trying to make sure that *no* sales are lost to
theft. That *may* be the right approach, but it also might not be...

: The important thing is that in weighing up the REAL substance of your
: comment, readers should be mindful that its content has been reached
: solely by casual speculation, and a complete absence of facts.

That's not entirely true. My "numbers" were idle speculation as you mention,
and as I carefully pointed out. The concept is *not* speculation at all. Check
out businesses in the US like Wal Mart and others that strive for a high level of
customer satisfaction, even if it means they do things that are not exactly
necessary, such as giving refunds without receipts and so forth. Walton under-
stood that business principle, satisfaction = more business, dissatisfaction =
lost sales. That point isn't debatable, except for rare cases where the product
is *so* good that its value offsets shabby treatment. For the most part, copy
protection is shabby treatment.

: BTW Bob I wouldn't normally dream of taking you to task as USUALLY you
: write such sensible articles........ makes me wonder whether I'm missing
: something here..........am I?.... :-)

: Regards.

: --
: Bill Newton

Nothing wrong with disagreeing. I agreed (in that post) that this is a complicated
issue that is worthy of discussion. I only know from first hand experience that the
current approaches to copy protection leave a lot to be desired. From dongles to
carrying around the original disks are poor solutions that are not customer-
friendly. I always choose to exercise my right to not put up with something that
I don't like. I've fought this copy-protection crap in our labs here at UAB for
so long that we simply and absolutely don't buy copy-protected software for these
labs any more.

[Bill Newton]

In article <5cvlb8$7...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>, Robert Hyatt
<hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> writes

>If you had read 2 more lines,

I already did Bob, honest!

> I clearly pointed out that I didn't have a
>decent estimate for either number. However, I do know that those that take
>a strong interest in customer satisfaction tend to do better than those that
>don't. That was my one and only point. That worrying about what is stolen
>might be worse than letting it go and worrying about making aproduct that
>your customers don't have to worry about...

I understand the point you make about 'customer satisfaction' however
I'm not sure why you imply that just because a few owners of 'copy
protected' software complain, then the majority of owners MUST be
considered dissatisfied.

In your earlier example you estimated that perhaps 20000 folk could be
so digruntled by 'copy protection' that maybe they were refusing to buy
any given programme. In simple terms you are saying 'dropped protection
= increased sales'.

You also imply that should the 'copy protection' be dropped maybe 10000
other folk would benefit from acquiring free pirated copies of any given
programme. In simple terms you are saying 'dropped protection
= increased piracy

So, ignoring those actual numbers and summarising, you estimate the
number of disgruntled people refusing to buy 'copy protected' chess
programmes outnumber by 2 to 1, those folk who would benefit by
acquiring free pirate copies from unprotected software.

Sad to say but I disagree, I suggest that your estimates are way off
reality. It's my view that you heavily overestimate the number of
disgruntled folk as indeed I believe you heavily underestimate the
number of pirate beneficiaries.

If my view is correct the true effect of dropping 'copy protection' MAY
create a few additional sales ( not totally convinced of this ) whilst
it definitely WOULD increase piracy dramatically.

So, you'll have worked out by now that 'I' estimate the number of
'disgruntled ' folk would be far far fewer in total than would be the
potential pirates.

'That' could be the view of Programmers currently utilising 'copy
protection'

>: For example you write about the 'multiple' being 'debatable' and the

>: 'stolen' percentage as 'open'. However it could be said that inasmuch as
>: the 'facts' are unavailable, you've taken a stab in the dark and come up
>: with a set of figures that conveniently support your view!
>
>
>Yes I have, but it is an idea that is discussed in every marketing course
>you'll
>ever take... customer satisfaction. If it's low, sales are low no matter what
>the product

> If it's high, the sales will be higher. Copy protection has the

>effect of making it low. Read the complaints here.

I do read them, but do we not have to assume that those NOT complaining
ARE satisfied with the product?

> I simply pointed out that
>that is a risk. Perhaps a risk that actually has a negative impact on total
>sales and profit. *perhaps*...

>
>: And so, your summing up comment:
>: >I like 25000 X $N as opposed to 5000 X $N myself.
>
>: is a remark that most folk would agree with, I mean if that WERE the
>: case it would be plain common sense to agree wouldn't it?
>
>: However, on the basis that most Programmers currently utilising 'copy
>: protection' have their fair share of commom sense do you wonder why
>: 'they' appear not to agree, especially as you imply that they would
>: increase their sales five fold by simply removing 'copy protection'!?
>
>Yes I wonder, because I wrote this post to extract an explanation. I think
>many do it because "everyone else does it."

Well... I dont quite agree with that, Because as I recollect, several of
the programmes currently sporting 'protection' were originally
'unprotected', presumably graduating to 'protection' having learned from
experience?

> Or they don't sell nearly as
>many as they'd like, and are trying to make sure that *no* sales are lost to
>theft. That *may* be the right approach, but it also might not be...

Your last sentence is significant........so, right or wrong be it on
their own heads!

...snip...

> Walton under-
>stood that business principle, satisfaction = more business, dissatisfaction =
>lost sales. That point isn't debatable,

The principle may not be debatable but the word 'satisfaction' IS
subject to opinion. As it may well be argued that 'copy protected' chess
programmes ARE currently bringing a nice warm glow of satisfaction to
the vast majority of owners who may well be delighted with their
purchase but dont have the inclination to write about it.

> except for rare cases where the product
>is *so* good that its value offsets shabby treatment. For the most part, copy
>protection is shabby treatment

...snip...

> I've fought this copy-protection crap in our labs here at UAB for
>so long that we simply and absolutely don't buy copy-protected software for
>these
>labs any more.
>

I note what you say Bob, its just that I have no problems with 'copy
protection' it causes me no inconvenience whatsoever and I fully accept
the reasons as to why some Programmers choose to include it.

I suppose we just have to beg to differ on this one :-)

Regards.

--
Bill Newton

[Der Macheide]

Bill Newton <not...@demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<7QyvzKAb...@demon.co.uk>...

> However, on the basis that most Programmers currently utilising 'copy
> protection' have their fair share of commom sense do you wonder why
> 'they' appear not to agree, especially as you imply that they would
> increase their sales five fold by simply removing 'copy protection'!?

> The important thing is that in weighing up the REAL substance of your
> comment, readers should be mindful that its content has been reached
> solely by casual speculation, and a complete absence of facts.

Well, one fact is in evidence -- Microsoft has managed to reach sales in
the billions of dollars per year selling non-copy-protected software; sales
that for more than 10 years have been offset by pirated sales also
estimated to be in the billions of dollars per year. Whole factories exist
in some parts of the world producing pirated versions of Microsoft software
by the thousands.

So, perhaps the question ought to be turned around. Why is it that some
companies (notably MS but there are others), faced with huge "losses" from
piracy, nonetheless do NOT copy-protect their software? Could it be that
the sales management teams at these companies have determined that
disadvantages of copy protection outweigh any advantages that might be
accrued in terms of reduction of sales of pirated versions?

[Robert Hyatt]

Bill Newton (not...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <5cvlb8$7...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>, Robert Hyatt

It's certainly possible, but in past issues of magazines like PC Magazine
and others, this subject has been quite hot. It seems to be a pet peeve
of many. And I can't imagine a single notebook user that appreciates a
dongle or having to carry a floppy diskette around. And there are a *lot*
of notebook users today, a very big *lot*...

: If my view is correct the true effect of dropping 'copy protection' MAY

: create a few additional sales ( not totally convinced of this ) whilst
: it definitely WOULD increase piracy dramatically.

: So, you'll have worked out by now that 'I' estimate the number of
: 'disgruntled ' folk would be far far fewer in total than would be the
: potential pirates.

Possible is all I can say... Just possible. I'd bet if you take a
poll, you get more "no" than "yes" votes...

: 'That' could be the view of Programmers currently utilising 'copy
: protection'

: >: For example you write about the 'multiple' being 'debatable' and the
: >: 'stolen' percentage as 'open'. However it could be said that inasmuch as
: >: the 'facts' are unavailable, you've taken a stab in the dark and come up
: >: with a set of figures that conveniently support your view!
: >
: >
: >Yes I have, but it is an idea that is discussed in every marketing course
: >you'll
: >ever take... customer satisfaction. If it's low, sales are low no matter what
: >the product

: > If it's high, the sales will be higher. Copy protection has the
: >effect of making it low. Read the complaints here.

: I do read them, but do we not have to assume that those NOT complaining
: ARE satisfied with the product?

Not really. I can't imagine *anyone* that likes to have to deal with it. It
doesn't add to the product, it adds to the hassle. Probably many tolerate it
since it is there, but I doubt that many really "like" it...

: > I simply pointed out that

Join the ranks of the mobile computing world. You won't like that dongle very
long. You won't like the floppy when your notebook has a choice of CDrom or
floppy drive but not both at the same time. You won't like carrying around a
couple of dozen floppy key disks for your favorite programs. You won't like to
defrag your disk then reinstall software, etc. It really can be a big hassle.

: I suppose we just have to beg to differ on this one :-)

: Regards.

: --
: Bill Newton

Fortunately, personally, it's a non-issue. I use linux on *everything* so I
don't worry about copy protection, there is none... my chess program of choice
is also not copy-protected... :)

[Der Macheide]

Bill Newton <not...@demon.co.uk> wrote in article

<ERCwzOAa...@demon.co.uk>...

> In article <5crs9j$9...@decius.ultra.net>, Joe Stella
> <no_jun...@here.com> writes

> Yes Joe, but you have to accept that many folk also do what 'many other

> people' are doing i.e. they continue to buy Programmers updated albeit
> copy protected work, and revel in using the always welcome new features.
>

> In my view If some people choose to cut their nose off to spite their
> face by not buying 'copy protected'........ well that's their privilege.
> But they're sure missing out on a lot of good stuff.

I am somewhat dubious about this statement. I'd be willing to bet that if
a poll were taken, most users of chess software use a basic few functions,
i.e., they play against the machine and they use it to analyze
positions/games. Most everything beyond that is gingerbread -- it may look
nice but it's not a major part of their diet.

> simultaneously taking Omar Sharif apart in a Bridge shootout.....or, if
> you dont like the foregoing description, just assume that this imaginary
> programme is 'everything' 'you' ever wanted to see in a chess programme.

> Its cost? lets say 10 quid or 15 dollars.

> It also has 'copy protection' built in.

> Would the noseless folk buy it?..............after all, the programme IS

You constructed a skewed argument. Why were you afraid to price the
program at what copy-protected software -- and what we're talking about
here is "limited install" protection -- is actually priced at? In
actuality, the "principle" applies to programs that cost over a hundred
dollars and some of them quite a bit over that. The purchaser is being
asked to buy an expensive program that, given the vagaries of computer
hardware and the chances of individual life, could end up as a useless
diskette in relatively short order. It's happened to me.

Now, I gather that you are a rather well-heeled individual, who habitually
shells out these relatively large sums of money for "lots of good stuff" --
and that's okay. If by unfortunate chance, you use up your installations,
no big deal -- just buy another copy. But I don't think it's okay for you
to belittle people for whom a hundred or a hundred-and-fifty dollars is
real money and represents a real investment.

Perhaps the real test will come when these programs begin to be priced at
the limit of your admittedly deep pockets -- will that "good stuff" still
look good at $500 or $750? Will the prospect of
three-strikes-and-you're-out have any effect on your buying decisions then?

Time will tell.

[Randall Leroy Speaks]

Bill Newton wrote:

In article <5cvlb8$7...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>, Robert Hyatt writes

>>I clearly pointed out that I didn't have a decent estimate for either
>>number. However, I do know that those that take a strong interest in
>>customer satisfaction tend to do better than those that don't. That
>>was my one and only point. That worrying about what is stolen might

>>be worse than letting it go and worrying about making aproduct that...

>I understand the point you make about 'customer satisfaction' ....

It is my view that you do not understand the principles of customer
satisfaction. I feel that if you did, you would not be so compelled
to defend the practice of copy protecting software.

>....however I'm not sure why you imply that just because a few owners

>of 'copy protected' software complain, then the majority of owners MUST
>be considered dissatisfied.

Now that you mention it, I do indeed believe that the majority of those
who purchase copy protected chess software Are dissatisfied with it, but
that they simply tolerate it. And by your own logic, do you think because
you are happy with your copy protected chess programs that the majority of
others are? Do you think that because a lot of programs are being sold
and only a handful of consumers have expressed discontent on this
newsgroup that the majority are happy with it?

[snip further extrapolations of what you thought Dr Hyatt meant...]

>If my view is correct the true effect of dropping 'copy protection'
>MAY create a few additional sales ( not totally convinced of this )
>whilst it definitely WOULD increase piracy dramatically.

The relevant producers are banking their business on the assumption
that this statement you make is true, and that customers will
continue to tolerate the copy protection, with all its negatives.
Does this sound at all to you like a risk, in a competitive market?

>>: For example you write about the 'multiple' being 'debatable' and the
>>: 'stolen' percentage as 'open'. However it could be said that inasmuch as
>>: the 'facts' are unavailable, you've taken a stab in the dark and come up
>>: with a set of figures that conveniently support your view!

>>Yes I have, but it is an idea that is discussed in every marketing course
>>you'll ever take... customer satisfaction. If it's low, sales are low
>>no matter what the product If it's high, the sales will be higher.
>>Copy protection has the effect of making it low. Read the complaints here.

>I do read them, but do we not have to assume that those NOT complaining
>ARE satisfied with the product?

Bill, you *Are* trying to be facetious here, aren't you?

>> except for rare cases where the product
>>is *so* good that its value offsets shabby treatment. For the most part,
>>copy protection is shabby treatment
>...snip...
>> I've fought this copy-protection crap in our labs here at UAB for
>>so long that we simply and absolutely don't buy copy-protected software for
>>these labs any more.

>I note what you say Bob, its just that I have no problems with 'copy
>protection' it causes me no inconvenience whatsoever and I fully accept
>the reasons as to why some Programmers choose to include it.

> Bill Newton

Bill, I can only say here that you must be the easiest type of consumer
on earth to satisfy and get along with. More power to you. And to the
programmers, as well.

sincerely,
Randy

[Bill Newton]

In article <01bc10a6$80474060$c20ca3ce@looie>, Der Macheide
<lo...@europa.com> writes
...snip...

>> In my view If some people choose to cut their nose off to spite their
>> face by not buying 'copy protected'........ well that's their privilege.
>> But they're sure missing out on a lot of good stuff.
>
>I am somewhat dubious about this statement. I'd be willing to bet that if
>a poll were taken, most users of chess software use a basic few functions,
>i.e., they play against the machine and they use it to analyze
>positions/games. Most everything beyond that is gingerbread -- it may look
>nice but it's not a major part of their diet.

You doubt my statement? Just what do you think sells all the latest
software? it's certainly not just the addition of half a dozen rating
points.

It's gingerbread man!

>
>> simultaneously taking Omar Sharif apart in a Bridge shootout.....or, if
>> you dont like the foregoing description, just assume that this imaginary
>> programme is 'everything' 'you' ever wanted to see in a chess programme.
>
>> Its cost? lets say 10 quid or 15 dollars.
>
>> It also has 'copy protection' built in.
>
>> Would the noseless folk buy it?..............after all, the programme IS
>
>You constructed a skewed argument. Why were you afraid to price the
>program at what copy-protected software

>
Sorry, you missed the point, I wasn't afraid at all, in fact the
principle stands even if you say the 'beastie' was for free. The
original writer was talking about the 'hassle' of using 'copy
protection' I was simply trying to get him to see things from a
different perspective.

>-- and what we're talking about
>here is "limited install" protection -- is actually priced at? In
>actuality, the "principle" applies to programs that cost over a hundred
>dollars and some of them quite a bit over that.

Yep, and were the 'beastie' available even at 150 dollars the noseless
ones would IMO queue up to fork out for it even if it came with the most
awful 'copy protection' limited install device you can imagine!

> The purchaser is being
>asked to buy an expensive program that, given the vagaries of computer
>hardware and the chances of individual life, could end up as a useless
>diskette in relatively short order. It's happened to me.

It's never happened to me.

> If by unfortunate chance, you use up your installations,
>no big deal --

>
Make sure you dont use em up!

>just buy another copy. But I don't think it's okay for you
>to belittle people for whom a hundred or a hundred-and-fifty dollars is
>real money and represents a real investment.

Sorry, you comprehend what I've written in a strange way, but I didn't
belittle anybody and I'm sorry if you took it that way.

>
>
>Perhaps the real test will come when these programs begin to be priced at
>the limit of your admittedly deep pockets -- will that "good stuff" still
>look good at $500 or $750?

>
You're in no position to comment with any foundation on the depth of
'my' pockets.

But were such a 'beastie' to come on the market......well!

> Will the prospect of
>three-strikes-and-you're-out have any effect on your buying decisions then?

No.
>
>Time will tell.

Always has done, always will!

Loosen up!

Regards.
>

--
Bill Newton

[Enrique Irazoqui]

mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote in article
<E4uBr...@news.prima.ruhr.de>...

<snip>

> My point is, that I have no problems with copy-protected softeware at
> all despite from ChessMachine The King 2.2
> CHESSBASE WIN 1.0 and W-Chess because in both systems the copy
> protections is not refreshable and not to deinstall.
>
> All other programs give you many tokens, unlimited installs or tokens
> that can be deinstalled. That should be enough.

You must be kidding.

Rebel: reinstall every time I change parameters in BIOS.
Mchess: lost all tokens from version 1.xx on.
Fritz 3 and Genius X: lost all tokens.
ChessBase 1.1: broken parallel port of my IBM Thinkpad.

I use mostly portables. Am I supposed to carry CDs and diskettes and
dongles? Yes, thanks.

Enrique

[Bill Newton]

In article <01bc10a9$eba97500$c20ca3ce@looie>, Der Macheide
<lo...@europa.com> writes
>

>Well, one fact is in evidence -- Microsoft has managed to reach sales in
>the billions of dollars per year selling non-copy-protected software; sales
>that for more than 10 years have been offset by pirated sales also
>estimated to be in the billions of dollars per year. Whole factories exist
>in some parts of the world producing pirated versions of Microsoft software
>by the thousands.
>
>So, perhaps the question ought to be turned around. Why is it that some
>companies (notably MS but there are others), faced with huge "losses" from
>piracy, nonetheless do NOT copy-protect their software? Could it be that
>the sales management teams at these companies have determined that
>disadvantages of copy protection outweigh any advantages that might be
>accrued in terms of reduction of sales of pirated versions?

Bring on the chestnuts!

For you to imply that Microsofts wealth can be attributed solely to
their non use of 'copy protected' software is tantamount to implying
that similar wealth would be the reward for chess Programmers adopting
the same practise.

A ludicrous comparison.

Microsofts wealth is attributed to a multitude of things though I'm sure
that you're well aware of this already.

Regards.

--
Bill Newton

[Enrique Irazoqui]

When mentioning Rebel I meant Rebel 6. I never had any problems with the
copy protection of Rebel 8. Apologies.

Enrique

[Bill Newton]

In article <5d1tpl$h...@news.tamu.edu>, Randall Leroy Speaks
<rls...@mulder.tamu.edu> writes

>>I understand the point you make about 'customer satisfaction' ....
>
>It is my view that you do not understand the principles of customer
>satisfaction.

>
Your entitled to your view, my view is that your mistaken :-)

I also know that an awful lot of people think that 'satisfaction' takes
the same form for everybody. It doesn't.

>I feel that if you did, you would not be so compelled
>to defend the practice of copy protecting software.

I dont feel compelled, honest! I'm just exchanging views with a few
folk, just like your goodself.

>
>>....however I'm not sure why you imply that just because a few owners
>>of 'copy protected' software complain, then the majority of owners MUST
>>be considered dissatisfied.
>
>Now that you mention it, I do indeed believe that the majority of those
>who purchase copy protected chess software Are dissatisfied with it, but
>that they simply tolerate it.

On 'what' do you base your belief?

> And by your own logic, do you think because
>you are happy with your copy protected chess programs that the majority of
>others are?

I've never said that.

>Do you think that because a lot of programs are being sold
>and only a handful of consumers have expressed discontent on this
>newsgroup that the majority are happy with it?

Obviously 'happy' enough not to express any discontent!

>
>[snip further extrapolations of what you thought Dr Hyatt meant...]
>
>>If my view is correct the true effect of dropping 'copy protection'
>>MAY create a few additional sales ( not totally convinced of this )
>>whilst it definitely WOULD increase piracy dramatically.
>
>The relevant producers are banking their business on the assumption
>that this statement you make is true,

So I'm not alone eh?

> and that customers will
>continue to tolerate the copy protection,

They will.

> with all its negatives.

Subjective comment?

>
>Does this sound at all to you like a risk, in a competitive market?

Erm...........?

>>I do read them, but do we not have to assume that those NOT complaining
>>ARE satisfied with the product?
>
>Bill, you *Are* trying to be facetious here, aren't you?

No Randy, I'm simply asking a question.

>
>Bill, I can only say here that you must be the easiest type of consumer
>on earth to satisfy and get along with. More power to you. And to the
>programmers, as well.

Thats very kind of you Randy. Thank you :-)

Regards.

--
Bill Newton

[Francesco Di Tolla]

Bill Newton wrote:
>
> In article <5ctm79$d...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>, Robert Hyatt
> <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> writes

> ...snip...
> >Which is better, selling 5,000 copies that absolutely can't be stolen,
> >or selling 25,000 copies knowing someone is going to steal another 10,000

> >without your knowing? I like 25000 X $N as opposed to 5000 X $N myself.

> >Whether this is the right multiple is debatable, and whether this is the
> >right "stolen percentage" is also "open"...
>
> Bob you surprise me putting forward this apparent non argument, it's so
> unlike you!
>
> Sheer postulation............... yes, of course 25000 x $n is preferable
> to 5000 x $n in one's pocket, but thats just speculation and could be a
> million miles from the truth. Unfortunately the way you have written
> your comments tends to obscure the manner in which you reach your
> opinion.

Yeah you are right they have found the solution: instead of selling
5*x-copies at y-price they just sell x-copies at 5*y-price.
The only proble they have later on is to cope with somebody selling
at price y.....

regards
Franz

--
Francesco Di Tolla, Center for Atomic-scale Materials Physics
Physics Departement, Build. 307, Technical Univesity of Denmark,
DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark, Tel.: (+45) 4525 3208 Fax: (+45) 4593 2399
mailto:dit...@fysik.dtu.dk http://www.fysik.dtu.dk/persons/ditolla.html

[Randall Leroy Speaks]

In article <jh+5$FAu0S9yEw$I...@demon.co.uk>,

Bill Newton <not...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5d1tpl$h...@news.tamu.edu>, Randall Leroy Speaks

>>>I understand the point you make about 'customer satisfaction' ....

>>It is my view that you do not understand the principles of customer
>>satisfaction.
>>
>Your entitled to your view, my view is that your mistaken :-)
>
>I also know that an awful lot of people think that 'satisfaction' takes
>the same form for everybody. It doesn't.

Yes, and I'm sorry for the way I said that to you, Bill. What I should
have said is that you don't believe in the principles of customer
satisfaction the way I do. I believe that copy protection is an
overall burden and affects customer satisfaction adversely. You don't.
My apologies.

>>I feel that if you did, you would not be so compelled
>>to defend the practice of copy protecting software.
>
>I dont feel compelled, honest! I'm just exchanging views with a few
>folk, just like your goodself.

Bill, I offer my apology again. This statement was just a result of
my views, which are different than yours. While we are just exchanging
views, we do have strong opinions on an important subject.

>>Now that you mention it, I do indeed believe that the majority of those
>>who purchase copy protected chess software Are dissatisfied with it, but
>>that they simply tolerate it.
>
>On 'what' do you base your belief?

I base my belief on what I feel is common sense. Some of it is obvious to
any user, some of it would only be known by an experienced computer user.
I will not enumerate more negatives now, nor expound on those that I have
already asserted in this thread. It is unimaginable to me, that anyone
would like their copy protection and all its impacts on the user end.

>> And by your own logic, do you think because
>>you are happy with your copy protected chess programs that the majority of
>>others are?
>
>I've never said that.

True, but false logic implies false logic. Thats just the way it seemed
to me at the time. Forgive me for my arrogance, Bill.

>>Do you think that because a lot of programs are being sold
>>and only a handful of consumers have expressed discontent on this
>>newsgroup that the majority are happy with it?
>
>Obviously 'happy' enough not to express any discontent!

Well, see, I don't think that a handfull of complaints implies
overall happiness.

>> and that customers will
>>continue to tolerate the copy protection,
>
>They will.
>

Perhaps. But not me. The only chess program that I am going to
tolerate is the one and only copy protected program I mistakenly
purchased: Chess Genius 2.0 Other than the copy protection and
all the irritations it causes me, and some interface bugs, it is
an excellent piece of software. I want Richard Lang to succeed
financially, along with all the other programmers. I just am not
going to support copy protection any more.

>> with all its negatives.
>
>Subjective comment?

Yes and no. It's certainly debatable, or we wouldn't be having
the discussion. One way I look at it is that if you are willing
to jump through required hoops and put up with irritations and
pay good money for the opportunity to play, then that's your
business. I chose to put an immediate halt to me supporting copy
protected software, and I feel that I made the decision based on
logical considerations. There is no malice toward the programmers
from me. The predjudice is against the software that I receive for
the money I have to pay. It was an easy decision for me, in spite
of my love for and involvements in chess for over 20 years.

>>>I do read them, but do we not have to assume that those NOT complaining
>>>ARE satisfied with the product?
>>

>>Bill, you *Are* trying to be facetious here, aren't you?
>
>No Randy, I'm simply asking a question.

You can assume that everyone not complaining are satisfied, but I believe
you would be quite wrong in doing that. It is not necessarily so. And
this is where I so arrogantly attacked your reasoning earlier.

cheers,
Randy

[Harald Faber]

## Nachricht vom : 31.01.97 weitergeleitet
## Ursprung : /FIDO/REC.GAMES.CHESS.COMPUTER
## Ersteller war : hyatt # crafty.cis.uab.edu@1001:1/0

RH> From: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)

RH> Subject: Re: Hiarcs 5 + copy protection
RH> Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

RH> Which is better, selling 5,000 copies that absolutely can't be stolen,
RH> or selling 25,000 copies knowing someone is going to steal another 10,000
RH> without your knowing? I like 25000 X $N as opposed to 5000 X $N myself.
RH> Whether this is the right multiple is debatable, and whether this is the
RH> right "stolen percentage" is also "open"...

I think this is the point noone can evaluate or ignores. They just call it
like "Milchmaedchenrechnung" (don't know how to translate it, stands for
wrong calculation).

Tschuessikowski
Harald

--

[Bill Newton]

In article <5d5kov$3...@news.tamu.edu>, Randall Leroy Speaks
<rls...@scully.tamu.edu> writes

...snip...

>Yes and no. It's certainly debatable, or we wouldn't be having
>the discussion. One way I look at it is that if you are willing
>to jump through required hoops and put up with irritations and
>pay good money for the opportunity to play, then that's your
>business. I chose to put an immediate halt to me supporting copy
>protected software, and I feel that I made the decision based on
>logical considerations. There is no malice toward the programmers
>from me. The predjudice is against the software that I receive for
>the money I have to pay. It was an easy decision for me, in spite
>of my love for and involvements in chess for over 20 years.
>

>>>>I do read them, but do we not have to assume that those NOT complaining
>>>>ARE satisfied with the product?
>>>

>>>Bill, you *Are* trying to be facetious here, aren't you?
>>
>>No Randy, I'm simply asking a question.
>
>You can assume that everyone not complaining are satisfied, but I believe
>you would be quite wrong in doing that. It is not necessarily so. And
>this is where I so arrogantly attacked your reasoning earlier.

Hi Randy, thanks for your comments which I have noted and naturally
accept.

Hope you dont mind me passing comment on the plain speaking courtesy of
your responses which in these days, with so much verbal abuse
reverberating throughout the newsgroup, were a pleasure to read, even
though we do remain in disagreement! :-)

Still, It's nice to know that if we do have differences of opinion then
at least we can beg to differ with equanimity!

Regards.
--
Bill Newton

[mclane]

"Enrique Irazoqui" <en...@lix.intercom.es> wrote:

>mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote in article
><E4uBr...@news.prima.ruhr.de>...

><snip>

>> My point is, that I have no problems with copy-protected softeware at
>> all despite from ChessMachine The King 2.2
>> CHESSBASE WIN 1.0 and W-Chess because in both systems the copy
>> protections is not refreshable and not to deinstall.
>>
>> All other programs give you many tokens, unlimited installs or tokens
>> that can be deinstalled. That should be enough.

>You must be kidding.

>Rebel: reinstall every time I change parameters in BIOS.
>Mchess: lost all tokens from version 1.xx on.
>Fritz 3 and Genius X: lost all tokens.

Sorry - I have never had any problems with them, and I have 3
machines!
BTW: Fritz3 has no copy-protection anymore. Since Fritz4 came on the
market, Fritz3 was sold without.

>ChessBase 1.1: broken parallel port of my IBM Thinkpad.

Ough !

>I use mostly portables. Am I supposed to carry CDs and diskettes and
>dongles? Yes, thanks.

>Enrique

I really had never any problems ! Strange. WHAT do you do with your
computers ??? Play chess with them, changing the BIOS is not
satisfying (or has Frans programmed a new Fritz5 that runs in the
Bios ???? :-)

[Tom C. Kerrigan]

Harald Faber (Harald...@p21.f2.n1.z1001.fidonet.org) wrote:

> I think this is the point noone can evaluate or ignores. They just call it
> like "Milchmaedchenrechnung" (don't know how to translate it, stands for
> wrong calculation).

"Blonde calculation" might be better. :)

The literal translation of "milk girl calculation" doesn't quite work.

Okay, I'm done. You can all go back to making on-topic posts. :)

Cheers,
Tom