Author: John Coffey
Date: 12:13:55 01/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 1999 at 14:36:33, Laurence Chen wrote: >On January 16, 1999 at 14:23:10, John Coffey wrote: > >>I think that programs would benefit from playing different levels on the >>internet and looking at the ratings obtained there. >> >>With recent programs there has been too much emphasis on using ratings >>as a method of determining the level of difficulty. This is a good >>marketing feature, but programs have shown an inability to predict >>ratings with any accuracy. >> >>I think that some programs should consider going back to having >>"levels of difficulty." These should start at such a easy setting >>that any player, no matter how bad, could find an equal opponent. For >>example, level 1 might only look at 30 possibilities. Level 2 might >>look at 60. Level 3 would look at 120 and it would continue to increase >>like this with each increase in level. This idea would make for a very >>interesting chess program. >> >>John Coffey >I think not. If you want a weak chess engine then go buy a chess engine which is >weaker. Nowadays all the top 10 chess engines in the SSDF plays at GM strength >and I can not see why would anyone want to buy a chess engine which plays at >amateur strength. So the best solution for you either to give up chess or start >studying the books and improve your game. Come now, people buy strong chess >engine rated at GM to help them in chess analysis, and if you happen to get one >of the top 10 chess engines, and cannot beat them, so the problem is you not the >engine. This is incorrect for lots of different reasons. I am glad that chess programs can play at top levels because I too use them to analyze games and I do learn from them. I *have* been studying books for the last 24 years, but to say that I should give up chess because I cannot yet beat a GM equivalent program is just absurd. To say the problem is with me because I can't beat them is hard to understand. *Most* people buy chess programs to play games with them. Most commercially successful programs make some pretense of offering levels that most people can enjoy playing, but they have not done a very good job of providing a wide range of levels. Instead they have been more concerned with beating other chess programs than they have with providing a good experience for their customer... which might be a low ranked tournament player. (Even most weaker chess engines, say Chess Master 3000, has too few levels that would be enjoyable to the average tournament player.) A chess program should be a fun experience for all who purchase it. It has been my observation that 90% of the people who bought programs do not play those programs despite the fact that it was their intention to do so. Why? Because the programs play too tough. They face nothing but frustration. The previous poster seems to think that i am saying that chess programs should not be top level. I have said nothng of the sort. It is my contention that it should not be too difficult to provide levels that would allow a program to play all the way from 0 to whatever the top strength is. The fact that most programs do not do this is to me missing a marketing opportunity and a chance to bring more players into the chess world. The previous poster misses the point that one of the best ways to improve one's chess is to be able to select a computer opponent equal to one's strength and then try to learn how to beat it. Once that goal is obtained then the player can learn how to beat the next level. I used to be able to do this with dedicated units that i purchased, and I saw my rating rise considerably. The previous poster is most rude in his response, and seems to imply that I should be a master or senior master before I consider buying a chess program. How many programs are you going to sell that way? Best wishes, John Coffey
This page took 0.01 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.