Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 06:14:26 12/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 1998 at 14:25:43, Reynolds Takata wrote: >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 > > > I'm quite sorry you are incorrect( at least your heading). The thing is that >Chessmaster does not have all of the features of fritz, in fact no one has the >features of fritz/J5. However strong players like to have the ability to play >against varied styles of opponents, and to be able to get oppinions by various >different programs, thus indeed CM can have a role in strong players/pro arsenal >of training tools. Especially because CM isn't just a strong player as you want >to claim, but indeed it's in the top 5, plus it's style is fairly unique. If >you want to claim that it's Gui isn't clear well that's opinion I like the way i >have set up it's GUI second only to fritz/J5, and i have every program in the >ssdf top 10. Further though it is yet to be seen, if a program came out and was >clearly stronger than the rest of the programs, i don't care if it had >absolutely zero features, except playing. It would have a role. This is not >saying the CM is the strongest program, though it very well could be, there is >in fact a strong arguement to be made for it, it is probably the winner of KKII, >it's won almost all of the 40/2 tournaments on the shep testing page, the (king >3.0)also recently just won a very strong tournament this week. Further there is >a pretty solid stream of Chessmaster victories being posted here. > >Reynolds Takata >USCF Life Master >Fide Master >25 years of chess experience >Owner of all Programs in the SSDF top 10(excepting Gandalf 3) :) Dear Reybnolds: In fact my post is not headed to discuss if CM600 is or it is not this or that. Personally I think it is one of the three strongest programs and I like its GUI. My point is less about CM than about how to define the field of professional software. I propose to define it like the software capable of giving to the most demanding GM player all what he needs to prepare for a tournament. If that definition is correct, maybe juts one program or two could be considered as such. Probably we need an alternative dcefinition for non professional programs as much there is a great lag between CM6 or Junior and a progranm like, let us say, Battle chess. This last clearly is mass market, but then what is CM6k? Non professional but also non mass market. A third definition is needed. What abourt serious player class' 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.