Author: blass uri
Date: 07:21:53 12/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1998 at 10:00:16, Laurence Chen wrote: >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 I saw chessmaster sacrifice h2 pawn for the initiative against Junior5 in game 7 of the match against it(There was no tactical winning line for chessmaster). chessmaster played 13.Bg5 in this game I do not understand why do yoy think that it gives more value to static features. Uri
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.