Author: John Merlino
Date: 08:36:38 11/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2001 at 07:31:49, stuart taylor wrote: >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 Trust me, we do all we can given: 1) Our programming resources, 2) Our deadlines, and 3) Our budget. 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.