I noticed that when I play against the Chessmaster 10th edition personalites (1400- 1600 rating), it is very difficult to play tactical against them. I feel often it is nearly impossible to set up a fork, discovery, skewer, CMX anticipates it almost every time, so I can't beat it with my tactics. I ussualy win, but only because at certain point of game (if I played everything without major mistakes so far) computer starts with blunders and dropping pieces. (for example, he changes a knight and a bishop for two pawns in the endgame). So, when I win, I am not so happy, I don't feel that I outplayed that personality thanks to my skills, it feels like, I played with someone who lost on purpose.
Am I mad, or someone else noticed that problem when playing aganist computers? I think playing with human opponents is far more fun and instructive.
Originally posted by ivan2908I haven't played CM10, but i found CM9 player profiles play pretty much full strength, except for the odd deliberate blunder. I can beat supposed 2000 rated characters on CM but in real life i get pasted. I suggest you just play it on full strength all the time and use the practise to improve your game so you play better against real people. The profiles are a nice touch, but it doesn't do you're chess much good, at least it didn't for me. You play for 40 minutes and the game is balanced then CM throws a blunder in because you opponent is supposed to be 1700 (and 1700's just flat blunder a piece once a game right?....NOT!!!) Many a game is ruined this way i feel. Feels good to win, but what's the point in fostering over confidence? As far as i'm concerned that's the worst thing that can happen to any player...
I noticed that when I play against the Chessmaster 10th edition personalites (1400- 1600 rating), it is very difficult to play tactical against them. I feel often it is nearly impossible to set up a fork, discovery, skewer, CMX anticipates it almost every time, so I can't beat it with my tactics. I ussualy win, but only because at certain point of game (if ...[text shortened]... aying aganist computers? I think playing with human opponents is far more fun and instructive.
Than my assuming that a 1200 engine personality could have better tactis then an average 1400- 1500 human player, wasn't mistake at all? I am reliefed now, because it was pretty frustraiting when Chessmaster told me more times : Ok, so you won thanks to your opponents blunder. What a humilliation 🙂
Originally posted by kmac27If engines were always right, chess would be solved. Chess isn't solved.
i find it boring to play engins because its no fun playing something thats always right 😛. i like playing humans because they play like people would not a machine. HUMANS DO IT BETTER!
Originally posted by gambit3These programs don't play bad at all.The problem is,if you tell a 2500 rated engine to play like a 1700 it can't really do that.It will play like a blundering 2500 but that's no comparison to a 1700 rated human.
If these programs are so bad then why did Kasparov and Kramnik have so much trouble in their man vs machine matches?
The main difference is an engine will play strong and at certain points throughout the game throw away material to compensate for it's strength.A 1700 human will play weaker moves throughout the entire game rather than a powerfull blunder here and there.
Then there's differences in opening knowledge and time handling.Have you ever seen a top engine in serious time trouble when a mere mortal plays it?Have you ever caught it by surprise at move 3?
I agree that the programs that I have played are not so good like a GM is. I played one at Knight odds and did not lose. I am sure Paul Morphy would have beaten me in a Knight odds game. I did a knight odds game with ChessMaster vs a 2000 or so rated ChessMaster personality and ChessMaster lost. ChessMaster 9000 won its match vs a GM. I played ChessMaster 7000 vs a USCF certified coach. ChessMaster 7000 won. These programs do not play correnspondence chess so well, pluss they cheated in the GM matches vs the champions. They ran the program with eight processors.
As far as what some players have stated about the blunders at 1700 pluss rated ChessMaster personality? I understand that at the 1700 rateing is when players start playing clean games. It is more in the positional game that they lose. The blunders like a missed combination or a hung piece or eliminated? I guess that it is too much of a problem for a program to play like a person.