Author: John Merlino
Date: 10:24:50 11/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 2001 at 10:44:17, stuart taylor wrote: >The following, is a reposting of the second half of a previous post in which I >show what my "wish list" IS. > I deeply appologise to John Merlino if he felt any offense in the past, or >even here re. complaints, not well enough worded. >I must word things with sensitivity, I know. But I also thought I had a bit of >leeway, as I actually did buy a copy of CM8K, which makes me a supporter. >> >>I'd really want a much more intelligent chatter, or, natural language analysis. >>Also, a very well graded ELO system wher you can type in the desired ELO which >>you'd like the program to play at. >> In that way, you could really monitor you progress. >>The elo which you type in should be applicable even with a few different styles. (and even applicable to the different time controls!) >> I don't see that it IS like that at the momment, in CM8000. >> And, for all this, the overall strength, if much greater, would prove the >>corectness of the other features, and make analysis and learning from program >>MUCH more worthwhile. >> I feel that STRENGTH COMES FIRST. >>And even if CM is not intended for top strength necesarily, CM6000 WAS that, >>more or less, and each upgrade MUST include a noticeable increase.(Atleast slight, and overall, i.e. in every aspect). >> And If that had been the case, I believe that it would sill be amongst the >>very top.(possibly, or around there somewhere). >> So if CM9000 could be 3 significant levels above CM6000, that would really >>make me happy, and be, I think, a very good idea too! >> >>I own CM8000, but it isn't quite what I had hoped for. But I'd be very >>enthusiastic to buy CM9000 (too) if that WILL be. >> >>S.Taylor I definitely did not take any offense at your post. You make very valid points, and I didn't really consider any of them as "complaints". The next version will have a new engine (as far as I know, it will be the same one that is participating in the Dutch Open right now, and currently tied for 1st place). As for the in-game analysis, most users (although probably not any users of this board) tend to forget that the analysis gets better over time. Most users, however, are not will to allow the program to spend 5-10 minutes per move analyzing their games, and will happily use the default of 10 seconds. No program, at that time limit, can produce meaningful analysis for reasonably good players. As for the ratings, it is very difficult to have the user type in a rating and have the engine play at that rating. We might try to throw a lot of testing resources at it someday, but it is not planned for this version. That is why we display theoretical ratings for every personality in the game -- it's as close as we could get given our CURRENT resources. We are also going to allow users to specify their initial rating, as well as specify ratings for user-created personalities, allowing you to play rated games against them. Admittedly, this can throw an incredible amount of garbage into the user's rating calculation, but, hey, it's YOUR program, right? If you want to create a copy of the worst personality in the game and give it a rating of 2500, then feel free.... ;-) 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.