Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 04:23:43 12/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1998 at 07:14:21, blass uri wrote: > >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 I fully agree, and still cannot understand the logic behind your thinking on this, how much do you have to go up in numbers to make the program jump a level up too. Bert you are from Gambitsoft, can you tell me why CM6000 is under the master list and not the grandmaster list. Or do you still regard CM6000 as the old weak 2000, 3000, 4000 engines. I believe CM6000 is better than a few listed in you grandmaster list and stronger. And if you say it is not a program a grandmaster or a tournament player would use, then go back in the posts and read all the people including me who have debated this. It should be under Grandmaster program not master. It deserves more than what you rate it I hope you are from Gambitsoft, otherwise ignore my comments about CM6K of the Gambitsoft site.
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.