Author: John Coffey
Date: 09:50:10 10/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 1998 at 11:55:39, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: >On September 30, 1998 at 13:43:54, John Coffey wrote: > >>On September 30, 1998 at 13:33:13, Komputer Korner wrote: >> >>>On September 30, 1998 at 03:46:38, Shaun Graham wrote: >>> >>>>On September 30, 1998 at 01:13:32, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 30, 1998 at 00:35:13, Shaun Graham wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>7. Aesthetic appeal, it runs in win95-98 and has multiple boards and a very >>>>>>high qaulity 3d feature(perhaps and IMHO the best 3d available) Nicest GUI >>>>>>available in most people oppinion i'm sure. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Really? I found Fritz's 3D board to be like a joke - I watched it couple of >>>>>seconds and it was enough... CM5000 has only real 3D board so far. >>>>> >>>>>Jouni >>>> >>>> >>>>Well Bernie everyone has there own oppinion, but i think few would think >>>>CM5000's bitmap image method can compare to the fritz 3d. You can find some >>>>examples of what Fritz's 3d looks like on the chessbase page. >>> >>>I agree with Jouni. Even though the Fritz 3D has perfect rendering of shadows >>>and depth, it's actual pieces are not lifelike enough. Perfect 3D should look >>>like a real set of pieces and the pieces in Fritz 5 do not fit the bill. The >>>best I have seen is the 3D set in CS TAL. CM 6000 comes next. >>>-- >>>Komputer Korner >> >> >>I haven't seen every 3D set, but saying that perfect 3D must look totally >>lifelike might not actually be the best solution. You can never get totally >>lifelike because a 2D monitor does not display in 3D. In an OTB game, chances >>are you would be moving your head around a lot so that you can see pieces >>that are obscurred by other pieces. (A few years ago I was playing OTB >>against someone with a dark brown wood set. I failed to notice that a fairly >>short rook was behind a fairly large king of the same dark color. I lost >>the game.) >> >>Another example of this are 2D pieces: Do they look totally lifelike? i.e. >>I have seen sets that used 3D looking pieces on a 2D board and they look >>dreadful. I would rather have a diagram that looks like it came out of >>chess life. >> >>My point is that some representations of 3D pieces might not be the best >>effect visually. The trouble I have is sometimes pieces blend togethor because >>they are all the same color. The bottom line is that you want something that > >I don't agree.. Playing with 2d diagrams on the screen has the very negative >effect of making you feel at loss when you are in front of a *real* board. 2d >might be neater.. but it simply does not help at all in improving your chess. As >to Fritz 5... at the beginning I thought too that the 3d graphics(was horrible.. >but If you set the options to the highest values the pieces look great. Colors >can be customized by editing the f5 file... Well I go back and forth between a real board and a 2D board all the time without problems. The bottom line is still the same: You want something that looks good on a 2D screen, even if it is trying to show 3D pieces. Having something that looks *photo realistic* isn't necessarily a requirement. The most important thing is to be able to tell the pieces apart. John Coffey
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.