Author: Chessfun
Date: 14:53:57 10/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2003 at 09:23:50, James T. Walker wrote: >On October 19, 2003 at 11:41:17, David H. McClain wrote: > >>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 > >The SSDF did test CM8K manually. It was a lot of work and I don't blame them >for not doing it again. When games are played manually many things can go wrong >and the testing becomes suspect (IMHO). Sometimes one game will take over 8 >hours. I have tested CM6K in this manner and I know what is involved. A few >games would mean nothing for a reliable rating. You need hundreds. The >Chessmaster played on the servers is NOT Chessmaster 9000. It is "TheKing" >engine and some other book. Sometimes it's a modified engine which plays very >different from the original. It is usually played in a Chessbase GUI where >auto232 is also available. To have credibility the games also have to be >controlled in some manner. The hardware needs to be consistent and verified. >Doing this on the internet without the ChessMasters own book is not interesting >to me. In my opinion, the program is only complete when competing with it's own >book. If you want to place blame, then blame the author and blame the software >company for not supporting auto232. They were aware what the requirements are >for SSDF testing and they chose not to support auto232. Perhaps they are not so >confident of it's performance at 40/2 under controlled conditions. Blaming >Chessbase is stupid. Very well put Jim. I would add though as I'm sure you know CM will auto 232 against CB programs at least for a couple of games it will. Maybe even Johann knows or has a way to auto play against other programs, as I would assume he does make some tests against other programs. Sarah.
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.