Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 17:53:58 12/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2002 at 18:41:05, Peter Skinner wrote: >On December 22, 2002 at 18:28:33, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On December 22, 2002 at 16:24:12, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>On December 22, 2002 at 11:52:19, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>> >>>>It is this: http://www.mindscape.co.uk/products/ProductInfo.asp?pid=251 >>>>Get it: with any name is the most entertainning program ever to this day. >>>>Fernando >>> >>>The average chess player is around 1500 USCF and for those people CSTal is not >>>even close to Chessmaster for entertainment/training/playing levels/ etc. etc. >>>etc. CSTal is relagated to just a curiosity now. When it was developed it >>>could have been a great program if the programmer had not been so stubborn about >>>giving it maximum knowledge while sacrificing depth. It also has a couple of >>>bugs which he never bothered to fix (much like CB). Other than that it is >>>interesting to play against. >>>Jim Walker >> >>I don't see why it isn't a great program. >> >>Does another program give the human opponent the same experience? >> >>I've always thought that people had weird methods for determining whether a >>computer program was strong, for their own purposes. >> >>bruce > >I always used the method "If it can kill me it is strong". I have yet to find a >chess engine that is not "strong". :) > >Peter. It used to be that chess programs killed you by drowning you in oatmeal. I got the idea that CST often found more interesting ways to do it. I haven't played against a chess program in a long time, so I don't know how they feel now. It used to be a bomb defusing exercise. Programs never found a way to make you play defense, they had a tough time pushing you. bruce
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.