Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:01:50 09/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 1999 at 23:29:48, Bradley S., Short wrote: >It is true that Chessmaster 3000 was never a strong program. I think in the '92 >Harvard Cup the program finished last with only one draw against Patrick Wolf. >At that time all the programs ran on 486/66's. >While I had used the program to learn how to play the game it wasn't too long >before I was able to beat it. It would seem to play well for a while and biuld >a good position then for no apparent reason it would play a horrible move and >throw everything away. When I graduated to CM4000 I quickly noticed how it had >no problem driving home a won position. >Until a few days ago I hadn't even looked at 3000. But now that my machine is >several times faster than the old 486 I used to have I was curious to see if >3000 could play a noticeably better game. It does. >Its not like 3000 managed a draw at some point in a series of games. I played >one game only against both 5500 and 6000. I turned all opening books off and >made them think from move one. (I didn't want any of the programs stuck >struggling with a crappy position found in its book) Now both games were drawn. >While its true that anything can happen in a single game, there is no way the >old 3000 could have pulled this off. Both games would likely have been >minatures. Even the little Novag Sapphire is of sufficient strength to prevent >a 5-0 wipeout by CM3000 of the past. >Chessmaster 3000 on a Celeron 366 is certainly 2300 plus. Congratulations. You have 'seen the light'. Everyone talks about these great programming breakthroughs. They totally forget the hardware advances. Glad you are thinking... Programs are better, but we have gotten more from hardware than from software over the years... a _lot_ more...
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.