Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 10:41:21 11/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2002 at 13:19:55, John Merlino wrote: >On November 11, 2002 at 11:12:56, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>Although disappointed, I would nevertheless be satisfied if CM offered fully >>tested personalities complete with performance information. For example, if all >>of the personalities supplied by/with CM were to be put into a list, with the >>first personality having the highest "overall strength," then that might be OK >>provided that the measured overall strength were published. > >I'm a bit confused. The ratings for the personalities are "published", because >they are displayed right next to the personality within the game. Also, they are >"listed", because in the "Select Personality" dialog, all of the personalities >are ranked from strongest to weakest, top to bottom. Sorry about the confusion. : ( I admit that it is because I am improperly informed regarding the latest version of CM. I will purchase the latest version and independently evaluate it, ASAP. Then I will come back and post better bulletins. If CM provides what I'm looking for, then I will post a bulletin saying so. That should clear up any confusion. > >>CM may not wish to publish anything that suggests that CM is not always >>"strong." However, the needs of amateur chess players would be served best by >>publishing that data. This was intended as humor. Please forgive me for not following it by a smiley. > >You seem to be confused about something (or I'm still confused about what you >are talking about). Anybody can create a personality that will lose almost every >game. This is obviously not "strong". There are over 100 personalities in the >game that are obviously less than optimum strength, and they are clearly rated >as such. I am a chess amateur. My rating is USCF Class A, or was when I last played in competitive tournaments. Although a "very weak" chessplayer in the eyes of many, most chessplayers are rated much lower. My focus has been to advocate features which I think would help chess amateurs like myself. I have been impressed by CM because it has offered many features in the earlier versions. [I have several.] My comments were a reaction to what was posted here. I sought clarification as to what you posted here. I hope that's OK. : ) > >>Perhaps settings not directly associated with "personality" might yeild an >>amateur performance level. Unfortunately, my experience with "dumbed-down" >>chess engines has been that they have terrible playing styles. Nobody would >>want to play against them because they do not play human-like moves and they can >>be defeated easily by anti-computer chess. Playing anti-computer chess is no >>fun except possibly for a computer chess programmer trying to study the >>software. Of course, computer chess programmers are rather odd anyway. : ) > >I'm still confused. All settings are directly associated with "personality". >There are no settings for the program outside the engine settings. Again, the confusion derives from the fact that I do not have the latest version of CM and have not evaluated it. I will do that. Peace? : ) Bob D. > >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.