Author: Bert Seifriz
Date: 02:01:48 12/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1998 at 19:09:51, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On December 12, 1998 at 18:47:42, Micheal Cummings wrote: >> >>On December 12, 1998 at 16:38:29, Bert Seifriz wrote: >> >>>Very easy: >>>You are a programmer and you work 1 year and you have changed many >>>details and so you change your chess program Slaughterchess version 1 in >>>version 2. Okay. >>>Or you say my changes are so tremendous I call that version >>>Slaughterchess Diamond 50 Carat now! Okay, no objections if you made a >>>jewel out of your program. >>>Or you make some little changes and you can still say this is my new >>>program. The old version was version 1, but now we have the year >>>2000 at hand so the new version is called Slaughterchess Millennium >>>2000 (there are no parallels with real life intended here!) >>>I would have some objections here! >>> >>>And well there are also some honest and humble people in this world. >>>They make a little change, their previous >>>version was 1 and now they call it 1.1, or when the change was smaller >>>they call it 1.01! This sounds reasonable and honest to me! >>>Johan de Koning is honest! And now read his version numbers. >>>Not 5000 or 6000, this is Mindscape algebra! Read his engine >>>version numbers, that's what we are talking about! And in these >>>numbers you can read which improvements he thought he made! >>>Nice weekend, Bert >> >>I do not take your version method thinking as being able to tell how good a >>program has jumped. I have many programs, not chess which do the same thing and >>there are some many big improvements. >> >>I think there is a big strength difference between CM6000 and Cm5x00, Have you >>ever thought Johan only does this in order to not make a big statement on >>strength. He might be covering his bases, that if it is around the same as the >>previous version, we can all use your theory, but if it is a big jump, which I >>believe it is, I do not believe you theory holds water. >> >>Regards >> >>Micheal > >Okay, Chessmaster 3000 and before sucked for playing strength, let's forget >those entirely. 4000 was the first to use a de Koning engine, if I recall >correctly. All of a sudden there was a cheap program that was also strong! >5000 was a new version of The King (2.5 or so?). 5500 did have the same engine >as 5000, but I think that 6000 again has a newer version (2.7?). I cannot check >these versions because I do not own these products myself, I have friends who >own them. Anyway, in the most recent Dutch Championship, The King won again, >and I believe his engine version number was 3.0. So, it seems as though he >continues to improve his software, and every once in a while Mindscape licences >his latest and greatest from him. > >Dave Gomboc Nobody said he did NOT improve his software at all! But I said: only in small steps (which do not correlate in any way with the big number steps 5000 and 6000 Mindscape likes so much). Now please believe what you want, I stick to my opinion. And as here are so many advocates who complain that CM is and was not tested in Sweden, now would be the time to make a big tournament of let us say 500 games between CM 5000, 5500 and 6000, and I predict that you will not find any statistically relevant difference. Each version could win! (A nice side effect would be that because of lack of Autoplayer some people would see that this is very hard work, and they would get an idea why the Swedes are not testing this program and would stop complaining about this fact.) Nice Sunday, Bert Bert
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.