Author: David H. McClain
Date: 08:41:17 10/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2003 at 10:37:05, James T. Walker wrote: >On October 19, 2003 at 10:21:41, Michael P. Nance Sr. wrote: > >>On October 19, 2003 at 08:43:30, David H. McClain wrote: >> >>>Gentlemen, >>> >>>I may not be alone with these thoughts but it is incomprehensible that >>>Chessmater 9000 is continually not included on your list. It has been available >>>for more than a year. You are welcome to have my legal copy of Chessmaster if >>>that is the problem. With the SSDF list shown on a ChessBase owned web site one >>>begins to wonder whether including Chessmaster has not been allowed by Chessbase >>>because it gives very strong competition to Chessbase products. >>> >>>SSDF continues to ignore Chessmaster 9000 as does Chessbase while other truly >>>independent testers test Chessmaster regularly and without preference. Is the >>>SSDF list truly independent? The impressions being formed by many of us >>>regarding this continual "oversight" are not favorable. Can anyone on SSDF give >>>an honest and reasonable explanation or has that not been allowed either? >>> >>>The integrity of the SSDF list, in my opinion, continues to degrade as an >>>independent chess program test organization regardless of the many fine people >>>that volunteer. Perhaps the real name of the SSDF list should be SSDF list, an >>>affiliate of Chessbase, Inc. You are insulting the intelligence of many that >>>attend and contribute to this forum by continually omitting the latest >>>Chessmaster versions from your list. >>> >>>DHM >>\ >>I think You hit on the quent essential Issue. This un-resovled Problem has been >>gone over,complained about, and agrued about time and time again. It has been >>put to rest,and keeps resurfacing over and over again. Chessmaster is a Chess >>Program,the positives and negatives concerning It really aren't imporant. Is an >>absorption By Chessbase the end result here? Something to think about.>>>>Mike > >Maybe someone from SSDF will answer you. Meanwhile I will give my guess. >Chessmaster 9000 does not support auto232. The only way to play it would be >manually and that is unrealistic to ask of SSDF operators. They could play "The >King" engine in another GUI but without it's own book. This again is not >desireable in my opinion. The King engine uses a different type of end game >tablebases that only it/Chessmaster GUI can deal with. I would also like to see >Chessmaster on the SSDF list but the fault lies with the company that produces >it not SSDF and I don't believe Chessbase has anything to do with it. >Just my opinion/guess. >Jim Jim, Chessmaster 8000 is listed way down on the SSDF list. Someone had to play the games. With the many members of SSDF it appears to me that if only a few would play one or two games manually with the SSDF parameters there would be enough games played to set a precedent and standard. The King is listed in many tournaments and is also played on many chess servers including Playchess.com and ICC.com. It is played against all engines by independent testers on this forum. How did they do it? The excuse you stated for not testing Chessmaster 9000 is weak at best and this is not meant as an insult to you. It just is not a logical explanation for this Chessmaster omission. It also appears to me that there are enough Chessmaster games stored on the Playchess server for Chessbase to accumulate that an evaluation could be determined. Chessbase's silence, along with SSDF is puzzling......... DHM
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.