TalkChess.com

[JonP01]

Hi Steve,

I am sure the problem is a bug in the program - perhaps this bug may relate to a parameter that adjusts the program according to the speed of the CPU or similar.

In any case, I note that DTTC loses on time with alarming regularity. Infact I now realise I have simply been "lucky" that the games I have played with it have never gotten as far as the first time control. Or in the cases where they have, they were rare instances of the bug not manifesting itself.

As I say, it is an easy bug to see. If the unit is simply left in "0 player" mode (so that it plays itself), one side will almost always lose on time under the tournament time controls. I thought this might have been a bug related to playing itself only, but it now appears that it happens exactly the same way if it is in "1 player" mode. Had I been formally testing this unit as a prototype, I would have found this problem a lot earlier than after a handful of games. It is rather unfortunate that the "budget" version of this program (LCD Talking) has the opposite problem - it moves far too quickly. I remember saying that whilst the LCD Talking did move far too quickly, it was better than losing on time!

I have to say that my experience with this DTTC unit has been incredibly frustrating. Not only is there the loss on time bug, but there are issues with matrix display corruption over time as well (and this has nothing to do with the battery type - I have subsequently confirmed that on an independant unit). Furthermore, the continuations it shows for the opposing side in "info" mode are garbage - it will often show illegal moves, horrible blunders or suicidal moves as the anticipated continuation for the other side. And then of course there is no permanent brain.

In the end, to an end-consumer like me it doesn't matter why the unit has these bugs - only that it does. I know that there may be issues within companies that cause products to be released without the thorough testing they deserve, however again - that makes no difference to me as a consumer of these products.

I'll go as far as to say that Excalibur products are becoming the bane of my computer chess hobby. I have a very long list of problems and significant bugs with every single Excalibur device that has passed through my hands. I think this is a good indicater that the dedicated hobby is never going to be anything remotely like it was in the 1980s and the early 90s. Back then, because dedicated machines still ruled the market, they were more thoroughly tested (against humans and other machines) than they are now. If the modern day Excalibur units were tested with the same thoroughness that typified the 1980s, then they would likely be a far better product than the ones being shipped to consumers today.

To make matters worse, Excalibur gives the impression that it is not necessary to communicate with it's customers and that emails sent to them can simply be banished to the "ignore" pile or the virtual rubbish bin. Would sid Samole put up with the quality of Excalibur's non-existent customer service and the endless stream of bugs with which their machines are released with? I strongly doubt it. I am starting to regret having ordered a GM machine now.

Hopefully you and others will understand that I am not taking a dig at Ron Nelson. I was a programmer in my professional life (financial applications) and I am fully aware that it is next to impossible to write a program that is bug free and works properly at the beta stage. I've never done it and I do not know of any programmer who has managed it (at least with a program of any degree of complexity). Even when I was sure a program worked perfectly, the phone would ring within a day the beta testing started with a user reporting a bug. And even if I had spent a week testing it myself, I might not have discovered that bug. It is critically important in testing to have a range of users with different focuses - only then is the chance of bugs making it through to the final release minimised. And it is critical to involve expert third parties in a testing process, rather than rely upon yourself as the technical guru to uncover all the issues.

So having said the above, I can't be sure why the products are coming out with so many bugs, but I feel that pressure to get products out the door according to a schedule might be a contributing factor. In other words, I feel it likely that if Ron Nelson had adequate testing support, testing feedback and enough time, no Excalibur product would ship with bugs of any significance, regardless of how pedantic the end-user of those products might be.

Still, I can't see things changing. That is the world we live in these days. the motto seems to be: Get it out the door and keep the shareholders happy. No wonder the old dedicated machines are considered classics and sell so well on eBay compared to stuff from the late 90s and beyond.


Relinquishing my Excalibur Fan Club Membership Regards


Jonathan