Author: John Merlino
Date: 15:47:56 03/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2000 at 16:49:10, Lars Nonnenberg wrote: > Concerning the "rate my play " feature, do we really need this ? Aren´t the > ratings in the "statistics window" reliable? > A final word about the recent discussion about mass market and the so-called > "serious player" stuff. What can be more serious for a real chess player than > trying to improve his playing strength ? I think chessmaster offers plenty of > possibilities to do so and probably more than the other "serious" chess > programs do. In fact what can you learn from watching different engines > playing each other via autoplayer or from running zillions of testsuits? I > want to learn chess and have fun doing so, not study statistics. > Lars Nonnenberg Whether the ratings that a player earns in CM7K via playing rated games are accurate is up for debate. I'm sure that they are within 100 points of the real world. Other than that, I couldn't say for sure. The "Rate My Play" feature that existed in CM6K and several versions before, was something like "Solitaire Chess"; it was just a quiz/tutorial where you had to guess the moves of the grandmasters. As far as I know, the actual games that it contained never changed from the first version of CM that they were in. The proposed version of "rate my play" (although it will be called something else) is going to be pretty much the same thing. Even if the ratings earned via rated games are accurate, there certainly is nothing wrong with having other ways to guage your playing strength. CM7K also includes the "Bruce Pandolfini Rating Exam". So this new feature will be yet another way "for a real chess player...to improve his playing strength". jm
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.