Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 06:08:29 12/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 1998 at 15:18:53, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >The header on this topic is a bit misleading. I have to agree with Reynolds >Takata on this....CM6K very definitely has a place in the aresnal of strong, >serious players. I had a usenet discussion of a very similar topic with Komputer >Korner a few weeks ago. > >I'm not a pro, but I am a USCF Life Master, and consider myself both reasonably >strong and reasonably serious. KK's biggest problem with CM6K was with the lack >of a reasonable book editor. My position on this was that, for many people >(myself included), this handicap is trivial. I have limited amounts of time to >study and play chess; I'd much prefer to actually play or study, than to edit an >alreay-1,000,000 position book. > >I have a bunch of software tools. I use them for different purposes. CM6K has a >nice array of personalities, and can be extensively customized. It is immensely >strong, and has a pleasing style (IMHO). I wouldn't rely on it as my sole chess >program (although I could if necessary), but I certainly believe that it has a >very prominent position in my software collection. > >Christopher R. Dorr >USCF Life Master > > > >On December 04, 1998 at 10:12:03, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Incredible how long discussion are produced because a lack of previous >>definitions of terms, as usual. A very long thread begun about if CM6000 should >>or should not be considered as a serious program just because nobody bothered to >>say that serious programs does not coincide with just strong programs. Strenght >>is now a comodity. You can get strong program even in freeware sections. Do I >>exagerate if i say most of them defeat most of us anyway? So the point is how >>good and workable the database is. It's good to learn openings? Makes things >>easier to grasp your weaknesses? Ches programas are now strong in the same sense >>as all motorcars have wheels. The issue is: what about the rest and the rest >>here is the surroundings, even the GUI. I dare to say that once database >>facilities reach a point of strenght as engines has, GUi will be the next >>decisive point to evaluate. >>fernando You are right in many things and I share your vision of how much -how much little- we need so detailed database functions, but let me point that the fact we do not use this or that feature is irrelevant to the discussion about which features should be present to qualify a program as professional. Matybe the word professional is too mucha loaded, anyway, specially when confronted with the awful expression "mass market" program. Fernando
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.