Author: Dan Kiski
Date: 07:20:23 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 One of the best examples of this is probably Fritz 3 and Fritz 4, where Fritz 3 is at least equal to Fritz 4.
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.