Author: blass uri
Date: 04:14:21 12/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1998 at 05:01:48, Bert Seifriz wrote: >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. How do you know? Did you do this test? I think that you take the name of the engine too seriously. By the same logic you can say that chessmaster is only a master level and not an international master or grandmaster otherwise they would call it chess grandmaster. I think that only games are relevant The history proves that you can learn nothing from the name of the engine(for example Junior5 is clearly better than Junior4.6 when there is a little difference between Genius5 and Genius3). 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.