Author: stuart taylor
Date: 00:51:34 05/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2001 at 03:38:30, Peter Berger wrote: >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 I'm sorry if you I read things wrongly, but I thought it was quite obvious to daily readers of this forum. There are countless examples, so don't say what I'm missing out when I just quote one recent example, which is that CM8000 got a minus score against Junior 5, whereas CM6000 beat Junior 5, 2-0.[both are in official testings] I could dig up much much more, if I spent some time over it. S.Taylor
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.