Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 16:44:55 11/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 1998 at 10:15:53, Amir Ban wrote: >On November 29, 1998 at 08:46:00, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >> >>On November 29, 1998 at 07:12:12, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On November 29, 1998 at 06:50:41, Georg Langrath wrote: >>> >>>>Sometimes I feel that all talk about strength is a joke. What is the difference >>>>between 2450 and 2500 if you are not a very strong player? Nevertheless also I >>>>am interested in strengthcompare. I think that we are kind of sick. >>>> >>>>Now my question. Has anybody played Chessmaster 5500 against Chessmaster 6000. >>>>In that way it would be possible to find if 6000 has got a stronger engine. >>>> >>>> >>>>Georg >>> >>> >>>Ozso, a veteran computer handle on ICC runs CM5500 and says this in its notes: >>> >>>"2: CM6k has stronger books than 55, but a 10% weaker engine" >>> >>>Amir >> >>Even though I respect you highly Amir and your program. I think to myself you >>are spreading rumours given by some old chess player giving his opinion which I >>think is way off, and I believe you know this too. >> >>I think he is wrong. Mindscape said their engine is stronger, not just the book >>making it stronger. >> >>I was going to say that you being a rival programmer, saying that CM5500 is >>stronger than the new CM6000, which is also competing against your program. >>might make people think to forget about getting CM6000, when it is weaker than >>it previous version and maybe buy your program instead. >> >>I think especially if someone has something to gain from making comments on how >>strong a program is, especially if it has a negative angle, they should back it >>up with facts. and not just write someones else's opinions. >> >>Maybe I am off the mark Amir, but that is how I feel about it. But I will I will >>leave your responsibilities and comments up to you. >> >>I mean no offence on what you write Amir, but I got the impression that you >>spreading rumours and not facts. >> >>I apolagise if this sounds like I am having ago at you. I do not want to, but >>just wanted to get my view across. I also suppose I gain alot from one line you >>write :) >> >>Thanks > > >I was just trying to be helpful, and quoted something I recently saw. That was >the only opinion on cm5500/cm6000 strength comparison I've ever seen, so you got >the complete and uncensored report. > >Take the quote on the authority of the one who said it. I only quoted what >someone else says, which I (or anyone else) can say without myself having any >opinion on this matter. It's not a "rumour". Why call it so, when I've given you >source and exact quote ? Ask him if you wish. > >I don't have a real first-hand opinion on this myself. I don't own either >program (I do have cm4000 though. I won't make the mistake of praising it. That >would really get me some angry posts :)). It's interesting in a general sense, >but it's not of great importance to me. I understand from what you write that >I'm supposed to have a business interest in making this newsgroup believe one >side of this, but I haven't given this thought until now, and I don't really see >what this interest might be. > >Amir No worries, it was only my thought, no need to say anymore on this matter.
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.