Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 07:00:16 12/10/98
It seems to me that there are a lot of Chessmaster lovers and supporters in this BB, or that seems to be my impression here, that all other programs are less often talked about. There seems to be a lot of commotion about the CM engine to be the strongest of all engines available today. My point is what good is to have a top engine if all other features to help a chessplayer to develop into a better player are missing. It is not enough to just play against the engine itself. These missing features having being pointed out by KK, so I won't repeat here. Go and read his review. Although CM is cheaper than other professinal engines available, it's lack of feature makes it less desirable for a chessplayer who wants to improve and move further in the chess arena. The bottom line is you get what you pay for. I said the CM is not aggressive, it is true, if one looks closer and investigate the playing style of the engine it resembles a style which plays classical chess, CM likes to accumulate small advantages, it doesn't force the its own will on the position, that is, does not go for complications, its assessment is the type of classical school of thought, gives more value to static features on the position rather than looking for the dynamic possibilities that the position may present, Fritz and MCP 8 play for complications and gives more value in its evaluation to unbalanced positions. I find such style of play by CM boring, and do not confuse aggressive play with a king side attack, or a combo played on board. So what if CM is a top engine which is still subject to debate, I think that Hiarcs 7 will be a stronger engine than CM. Enough said, my guess is that CM lovers like to watch their CM play games against other engines rather than use an engine with features which can help a chessplayer to improve.
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.