Author: stuart taylor
Date: 03:05:09 05/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2001 at 05:17:41, Chessfun wrote: >On May 20, 2001 at 03:51:34, stuart taylor wrote: > >>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 > >You make all these statements yet your first post; >http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?170600 >in this thread indicates that you know nothing? > >Sarah. http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?170612 Sarah, whew! You do your homework very well! I was probably refering to the above post (with a slightly different heading) for what It's worth, and, if it is the right address. I base myself mainly on inceasent reports posted here. But they are not always written in a bad light e.g. It was always written about as a wonderful thing that CM8000 was doing so well against an amateur program (I think anNon, or whatever), also how good it was against Shredder 2, (in which there was even a hardware advantage to Shredder?) And other such things which I read not so well into it. And as I said, 6000 did MUCH MUCH better against Junior 5 than did 8000.
This page took 0 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.