Chessmaster 10th Edition

This is a thread for anyone who have this game or any of the Chessmaster series. Come here to talk about anything in the series.

I'll start off something to get this thread start. Have any of you ever beaten the Chessmaster in any of the games in the series? I find it hard to believe that it's rating is at 2800, but CM9000 did go 3 for 1 wins against GM Larry Christainsen.

The closest I ever got to winning is a draw lol.

I always thought CM's game had a hinky, artificial feel to it , you know you're playing a machine. That 2800 rating is meaningless, they just grabbed it out of their hat.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
I always thought CM's game had a hinky, artificial feel to it , you know you're playing a machine. That 2800 rating is meaningless, they just grabbed it out of their hat.

It sure looks like that 2800 rating is inflated. The CEGT 40/4 rating is between 2600 and 2732, depending on the CM10 personality. Also, the 40/40 rating is between 2632 and 2712, depending on the personality. (Both rating lists using 2GHz cpu.)

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/CM.htm

(Edit - CCRL does give a 40/40 rating of 2773 to CM11 on a single cpu, though.)

Who cares. Maybe casparov. For me is the same. I have chessmaster because beautifull tutorials, nothing more. For playing, it is much greater challenge to play with a human.

Originally posted by ivan2908
Who cares. Maybe casparov. For me is the same. I have chessmaster because beautifull tutorials, nothing more. For playing, it is much greater challenge to play with a human.

I wasn't slamming CM, I was just mentioning its actual rating, since the OP mentioned its (inflated) advertised rating. If CM would run on my operating system, I'd also have it for the tutorials. (It's more than strong enough for me. 2600 or 2800, I wouldn't know the difference.)

It's an interesting program, I learned the basics of chess with it.

Of course, playing against human is much more instructive.

I'm still at the level where I can't tell how "artificial" it's play style is. All I know is it can give me a pretty bad arse whooping, even at 1 sec per move!

Then pick up weaker personality. Problem with chessmaster : Even on low elo (For example Josh age 6, 1200) he plays very good and then throws out a critical blunder to compensate. That is artifitial.

Try shredder chess, not only it is more human-like, but his "blunders" are very interesting, because if you spot it you often have a chance for spectacular tactical attack - combo. (Of course, not on its full strength, then it does spectacular tactical attack on your skin )😛

Originally posted by ivan2908
Then pick up weaker personality. Problem with chessmaster : Even on low elo (For example Josh age 6, 1200) he plays very good and then throws out a critical blunder to compensate. That is artifitial.

Try shredder chess, not only it is more human-like, but his "blunders" are very interesting, because if you spot it you often have a chance for spectacular ...[text shortened]... Of course, not on its full strength, then it does spectacular tactical attack on your skin )😛

CM personalities have been my only opponentes for a long time, and I think even though it really seems artificial, above the 1600 level, it begins to make only small blunders (like giving a pawn away with a 2 move combination, or moving it's king before castling, etc), and plays really accurately while defending. (at least according to my level.)

here's a game I drew from a very nice "positionally won" position where a 1560 rated personality (actually it's objectively stronger than the 1650 personalities, according to it's settings. his rating is miscalculated. anyway) begun to defend very accurately after the loss of a pawn.

[Event "Chessmaster: Grandmaster Edition Rated "]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.11.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Diskamyl"]
[Black "John"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 h6 6. O-O Bb6 7. Re1 Kf8 8. Be3 Bxe3 9. Rxe3 d6 10. h3 Nh5 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. Qxh5 Qe7 13. Bb3 Qg5 14. Qe2 Qe7 15. f4 Nc6 16. f5 Bd7 17. Nd2 Rb8 18. Rf1 Qf6 19. Nf3 h5 20. Nh2 Re8 21. Rf4 Ne5 22. d4 Nc6 23. g3 Rd8 24. Rh4 Qh6 25. Bd1 Qg5 26. Rd3 g6 27. fxg6 fxg6 28. Rf4+ Kg7 29. Kg2 h4 30. Ng4 hxg3 31. Kxg3 Rxh3+ 32. Kxh3 Qxf4 33. Kg2 Rf8 34. Nf2 Ne7 35. Rf3 Qxf3+ 36. Qxf3 Rxf3 37. Bxf3 g5 38. Bg4 Bxg4 39. Nxg4 Ng6 40. e5 dxe5 41. Nxe5 Nf4+ 1/2-1/2

I just made two single inaccuracies because of time control (I had 4-5 minutes left on my clock) in the middlegame while building up the attack and I got punished for it, being the side to defend now. if you analyze the game a bit, beggining from 24...Qh6, all the moves (including the insignificant looking move of the h pawn) are prophylactic. (by the way, 41.Nxe5 was a game losing blunder from me, but my opponent failed to take advantage of it.)

the nice thing about CM is, eventhough it plays artifical blunders, above 1650 or something, you have be quite accurate to punish them.

note: all these statements are for long time controls. I don't play any games slower than 90' 30'' ore 40/120' against CM. In fast time controls, people say it makes really gross blunders up to 2000.

Originally posted by Best101
I find it hard to believe that it's rating is at 2800

Rybka 2.3.2a ranked 3200+ ...😀

Originally posted by xox DeepThought xox
Rybka 2.3.2a ranked 3200+ ...😀

I think you're mistaken. Rybka is "only" 3100+ for 64 bit, 4 CPUs version, not 3200+. (But that's still amazing!) However, this really is a thread for CM discussion, so hopefully the discussion won't get too sidetracked.

http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404/

I find CPU AI a lot harder than humans. They hardly ever make mistakes (I play AI rate in the range of `1800-2100), and plus they have infinite patience and will never lose on time control. Also the computer will not miss a chance for a forced mate either.

Humans on the other hand make mistakes, miss forced mates, and then you can play the phycological(sp?) game on them.