Author: stuart taylor
Date: 06:52:11 05/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2001 at 06:59:06, Graham Banks wrote: >On May 20, 2001 at 06:05:09, stuart taylor wrote: > >>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. > > >You cannot base your assumption over 2 games v Junior5 - surely you know that >that is ridiculous! >Graham Yes, but it does come to the point after being repeated so many times in all different ways and different programs that one can't keep on saying that forever. And as I said around here somewhere, it could just be that you were not looking closely at people's postings about results from CM8000, and compared to 6000. S.Taylor
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.