Author: stuart taylor
Date: 04:31:49 11/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 2001 at 13:24:50, John Merlino wrote: >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 So do the most you can for the next upgrade. Maybe you can still do even more! It's a shame that most users aren't after what I am. But I am certainly one for a start, and I'm sure there are many others too. In fact, any "thinking" chess enthusiast would be ADDICTED to such ideas, You'll be surprised! S.Taylor
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.