Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: I think most amateur engines are better. Why so bad program?

Author: Georg Langrath

Date: 12:40:30 05/31/01

Go up one level in this thread



>
>>If it is 100 points stronger it is still not strong enough, the LCD chess model
>>takes about 1 hour of thinking time to play Qe7 in this position:
>>
>[D] rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/3p4/8/4n3/5N2/PPPPQPPP/RNB1KB1R b KQkq - 0 1
>>
>>1200??  hard to say, it does play some decent moves.
>>
>>The new thing might as well have an Athlon in it. Does anyone know what kind of
>>chip was in the old one?

Excalibur should have money enough to buy a better program. Why choose such a
lousy program? Of course the hardware is very slow, but nevertheless I think
that e.g. Insomniac had made much better even on this slow hardware. And I think
that many amateur programmers would be proud to sell their program to Excalibur.
Excalibur could afford it.

Of course this chess program shall be suitable also for amateurs, but that
should also be possible on lower levels. You don't have to call them handicap
levels. Nobody think it is fun to play on a handicap level because of the word
handicap. You only have to make floating levels from beginner and up.

Or is it so that the hardware is so slow that also the best amateur engines
would be that bad? Perhaps also the Excalibur LCD program had been good on a
modern PC?

Anybody that can tell me? This is a mystery for me.

Georg



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.