Author: Peter Berger
Date: 00:38:30 05/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2001 at 03:18:56, stuart taylor wrote: >On May 19, 2001 at 22:24:21, John Dahlem wrote: > >>On May 19, 2001 at 21:51:18, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On May 19, 2001 at 21:28:25, Eric Tom wrote: >>> >>>>On May 19, 2001 at 19:06:11, stuart taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 19, 2001 at 15:34:15, william penn wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>i suspect that cm6555 would still score among the top three, even against the >>>>>>best and newest programs. Cm8000 is a rip-off since there is a noticable >>>>>>decrease in strength from the previous more strong version 6000 >>>>> >>>>>On what do you base that? >>>>>And is it stronger than 6000 or 7000? >>>>> >>>>>And if it is a rip off, can there be any compensation, or money-back? >>>>> >>>>>S.Taylor >>>> >>>>Compensation? Maybe the recent amazing personalities, such as CMUtzinger and >>>>CMFun can compensate, I don't know. I've recently fell in love with >>>>CM8_Bendorz. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Eric >>> >>>A clear weakening of playing strength makes it questionable as an "upgrade" in >>>my opinion. >>>All other extras and improvements should NEVER be at the expense of playing >>>strength, Unless specifically made clear. If it's simply not improved, that's >>>also not so good, but if it is EVEN WEAKER, then patches must patch up atleast >>>that! >>>I don't know if any other program was that much weaker than TWO upgrades >>>earlier! >>>S.Taylor >> >> >>It's a _different_ engine, I don't know if they ever claimed it was stronger, >>and if they didn't, there is no reason to even _think_ of compensation. If they >>did, I personally still wouldn't feel cheated as long as the thing isn't some >>random mover or something like that (they added features, that is enough to call >>it a new version). Also, I haven't seen any cm6000-cm8000 matches published, >>and until someone does, I suggest everyone stop assuming 8000 is weaker than >>6000 anyway. >> >> >>John > >As I have said, There are sooo many results reported on this forum, that I don't >see we need to wait for something to be "published". >Next year will be too late to ask for a new patch for CM8000. >S.Taylor I don't follow - I have read several of the Chessmaster posts, too and haven't seen anything suggesting that CM8000 _isn't_ much stronger than CM6000 . IMHO there are two possible explanations for the disappointment with the CM8000 results : a.) CM loses some match - then an alternative personality is created and surprise : it scores better - then this personality is tested . Result reports usually look like this : Octopus - 37.0/56 Fortress - 36.5 Devourer - 31.0 8555 - 29.5 Omega - 29.0 8777 - 29.0 Kiwi(Banks3) - 28.5 Deep CM - 28.0 Rudidio(KKND)- 27.5 Utzinger - 26.5 Titan - 26.5 Extra - 24.5 Chessmaster16- 24.0 El Rey - 21.5 Mg1 - 21.0 I can't draw any conclusions out of this result , can you ? The only trend I got so far is that a higher value for SS is better at longer time controls again. b.) Maybe CM6000 is worse than its results in the SSDF suggest - this might very well be the case : it played the minimum number of games necessary and it played _very_ few games against other top programs . CM8000 really scored bad against Fritz and partly Junior ; I am looking forward to a match against the Tigers - it seems to do quite OK against them in my basement, especially against Gambit Tiger . pete
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.