Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 14:26:08 11/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2004 at 14:23:09, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On November 04, 2004 at 13:41:03, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >Hi, Hi, > >>I was not complaining, but only making things more clear. > >Yes, why not so we have a nice disucss and the others can read it too. > >>I am making huge pressure on SMK to make higher improvements...unfortunately I >>am never enough satisfied... > >That is professional thinking of course! Maybe, but this is the way I am. I just try to be myself all the time. > >>This is true, but an improvemnt of less than 50 points is not easy to see... > >Yes, for me only with a lot of games :-( :-) > >>Yes, I think Shredder is one of the most important programs of CB. > >Shredder is the most important program we have today. >Simple: Shredder is the number one! Thank you. > >>I do not like to speak about other chess programs to avoid missunderstandings, >>but I have a lot of respect of the Gandalf team. >>I believe the program is clearly stronger, so the customers should be happy with >>it. >>I have not seen it yet, so mine is just an impression based on what I am >>expecting. > >Here you must understand my position! > >The positions I have in the latest five-six years from the work I do: > >- Group building for make more! >- Animation for get more! >- Compatibility for get more! >- Support for get more! > >For get more: >If I try this I have the result to have more in the future for my own interest. >So you can see that I am thinking on myself with the work I made too. OK. > >I wrote Gandalf and Shredder: >Booth programs are important: > >- Shredder supported a standard protocol (UCI), is the strongest program we >have, good endgame, nice openings, good positional computer chess. Yes, I agree it is a very good program and I do like it, but I believe Stefan can do much better, so I am trying to "force" him to show all his very high potential version after version... > >- Gandalf supported a standard protocol (UCI and WB), have the most interesting >middelgame, played the most shortest games vs. other top programs and we have >fire on the board. I always liked Gandalf playing style. > >And now Sandro: >A user asked ... what is a good combination for my fast PC to analyze games. >The right answer is Shredder in combination with Gandalf and all the strong >amateurs we have because each amateur have a selection it's very good. Example >Yace in endgame. I always supported the idea of promoting more than one program. I always told people to try to buy 2 or 3 programs every year based on the way they use the programs and to use them to learn if this is what they would like. Some people are not willing to lose games or too many games, but I am ready to lose them all if this can improve my way to play. I cannot do this with Kasparov as he would get bored soon, but a chess program will play forever the way a user want, so it is a marvellous tool to help people to improve their way to play. Now that we have programs playing close to the way I always wanted and good enough to be able to teach indirectly how to play. I mean winning and showing weaknesses on the opponents, most people do not buy them as they did some years ago. Many players keep saying that the ones they have are already too strong, so they do not need a stronger one. Well, if you let play latest chess programs against older ones one can see that they would be beaten easily most of the time. This shows that they were not so strong, but still weak and the players who do not know how to win are only weakers than them. The only way to learn is to be able to play against strongest players, after reading chess books and see what is in the books. I mean that more people should buy chess programs now that in the past like other computer games that are now much better as being more realistic also due to a better graphics... > >Booth programs are interesting for users because users can used booth program >under all available GUIs. For me is absolutely clear, my commercial favorits >from the "older" available commercial engines. Like Hiarcs too but the program >is for me not interesting because the engine support is bad. > >>I only make the tests with my books, like the SSDF, and I think Shredder 7 book >>gave an extra strenght to the program compared to Shredder 6...the same would be >>true with Shredder8a.bkt book. > >I believe it. >I belive you do a big work with the Shredder book. Much persons asked me in the >past ... Frank what do you think is a good book for the opening. I say all the >time the book by Sandro ... sorry Sandro ... and the book from Dan Wulff. Booth >books are long time developements and have a very high niveau.ยด I know Dan and agree with you that he a good book developer. > >But: >More and more persons try to start a good work with opening books too. >Harry, Salvatore, Wael much others. I was the first one to bring "dedicated books" to chess field in 1987 and I did expect other to follows me. At the beginning it did not happen, but recently yes. >A lot of good Arena books are so far available. >I hope that the developers work also a long time on this books, you do or Dan >do. > >I know you dislike if I write about different programs, books! No, I think everybody can have his own opinion and we have to respect other's opinions. I do not like to judge other chess programs, but prefer other people to judge them. I get fun to make the openings book and I am satisfied if the people like them, but then immediately I start thinking how to make them better...maybe I am a little too crazy...I guess I am crazy about chess and chess programs since a long time...anybody has a medicine for this? Ciao Sandro > >>> >>>Best >>>Frank >> >>Ciao >>Sandro > >Keep up your good work Sandro! >I am sure the new Shredder book have success, same for Shredder 9.0. > >Best >Frank
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.