CMXI -- First Impressions??

Originally posted by diskamyl
lol, you have tested CM 7000 in only a test suite and argue about CM being overrated in a thread about CM11.

in computer chess, ratings are calculated reliably only after hundreds of games, and it's version 7000 we are talking about here!

Several players with the updated versions of ChessMaster make the same claim. That claim being that a player with that rateing would not play as poorly as the ChessMaster personality does. The claim I made is that Chessmaster over rates itself.

Originally posted by diskamyl
...that doesn't make that player better than CM though, actually I can go as far to say that it's statistically negligible in computer chess.

well, then the same applies to larry losing to CM as well. we can't have it both ways...

CM7000 is 4 versions ago and leaps and bounds behind in technology. You can't use that to compare. The latest version is the 3.5 king engine and I'm sure that no one here knows a GM or even and IM that has played it yet. This is the first time that the engine was multi-threaded. But to me who cares? I see it as a training and improvement tool because it's much better than I'll probably ever be. If you are a decent player and match features side by side I think you'll find the CM series offer more than most others, at a fraction of the cost. hell you can get CM10 for 19 bucks. Not because it's bad but because of the mentality of the company producing it. They see it as a game and lower the price because the new one is out. Chess mentor still costs 70 bucks for a basic version and has a fraction of the content. This and it's windows 3.1 technology. With Fritz you have to almost be a pro to decipher the analysis. In CM it talks to you in plain English as it moves the pieces during analysis along with better lines.

Originally posted by wormwood
well, then the same applies to larry losing to CM as well. we can't have it both ways...

yep, but not to the hundreds of games against other engines.

Has anyone tried the DS version yet? Seems like it could be a nice source of portable tactics problems, if it's done well (and that's a big "if"...)

Originally posted by gambit3
I found a test in a web page.

Where is this test? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Originally posted by incandenza
Where is this test? I'd be interested in seeing it.

I do not know where it is or even if it is still online. I tried to find it again. I gave up looking for it.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
My first impression of Chessmaster's newest version after using their software for nearly two decades: I glanced at the box, saw that it still needs a complete overhaul (by chess professionals) before I have a reason to read the text on the back of the box.

Heh... no offense, but, you "glanced at the box"? Talk about an informed review. Maybe you'll have time to post an in-depth update if you get the chance to actually read the text on the box.

Personally I find Chessmaster 10 to be pretty good for beginners, especially the Waitzkin tutorials. The engine is certainly strong enough that it makes virtually no difference if it is slightly weaker than Rybka or whatever.

As for the simulated "personalities", they can be a bit strange (playing the best moves most of the time, then dropping a certain quota of material for no reason), but if for whatever reason you can't play online they're better than nothing.

As for the "English" analysis features: in 10 they are definitely pretty weak, but really, what Fritz gives you is not that much better--even Fritz's added commentary is pretty superficial, and when it comes right down to it, any engine is just giving you a predicted line and an evaluation score.

Anyway, I will look forward to hearing more about the new version from people who actually bothered to install it...

Chessmaster is many peoples introduction to chess, chess is not exactly having its heyday now so it is doing chess a favor by having a title in the shops available to anybody, I myself have a few of the CM series including ten, I find them to be perfectly adequate , sure if you are a very strong player then you may well find fault but for the majority of people CM series is strong enough to challenge and improve play.
I do not like people slating it needlessly, it really isnt that bad and I think a certain amount of snobbery is at play with some of the people that do not like it.
If you are a high rated player then it may not be the best but I have never beaten any of them and doubt I ever will, it is there always for a ten minute game or for a long game, I am quite fond of the series although now I play online it is a little redundant but I wanted to just stick up for it a bit, we arent all IM/GM standard and we dont all hate it.

The soapbox is free for the next speaker, I thank you.

🙂

Originally posted by Pigface1
Chessmaster is many peoples introduction to chess, chess is not exactly having its heyday now so it is doing chess a favor by having a title in the shops available to anybody, I myself have a few of the CM series including ten, I find them to be perfectly adequate , sure if you are a very strong player then you may well find fault but for the majority of pe ...[text shortened]... tandard and we dont all hate it.

The soapbox is free for the next speaker, I thank you.

🙂

I want to thank Pigface1 for yielding the soapbox to me. 🙂

I haven't bought a CM since CM 5000. (I also had CM 2100 when it was sold by Software Toolworks.) I'd buy another one, except Ubisoft has decided not to officially support the operating system that I use (Win 2000). I believe the reason I read for their decision is that Windows 2000 is more of a "business" OS, and not an OS that a gamer would typically buy. So they won't be getting my money. Que sera, sera.

P.S. - Yes, I know that some people have reported to have gotten it to work with Win 2000, but others have not been successful. And I'm not about to buy it, cross my fingers, and hope that I can get it to work.

Now I yield the soapbox to the next ranter, uh, I mean poster. 🙂

I would argue that Chess master is more beginner friendly than Fritz - and more kid friendly too.

Maybe they should set up some accounts on here that wouldn't be listed in the player rankings but would figure a rating for them. CM Fritz and Shredder

Originally posted by diskamyl
yep, but not to the hundreds of games against other engines.

engines don't play like humans. which means that theoretically speaking, you could have an engine which beats all other engines, but still lose to all humans.

if we could formalize the exact way how human play differs from computer play, we could program such an engine. but we don't really know exactly how a human brain processes chess.

if we some day find out how humans process chess, it'll revolutionize chess programs. the signal speed in human brain is something like 280km/h, with a RAM of less than 10 objects. think of what it would mean to increase that speed up to the speed of electric current in a silicon chip, and do the same exact processing. -the impact would be something like having an infallible, tireless GM analysing a position for a thousand years, in the same time we now use for one blitz move.

Originally posted by wormwood
engines don't play like humans. which means that theoretically speaking, you could have an engine which beats all other engines, but still lose to all humans.

Or, by the exact same logic, you could have an engine which loses to all other engines, and yet beats all humans. Either proposition is absurd because we know they are both completely divorced from reality. An engine's performance vs. engines is fairly similar to its performance vs. humans. To demonstrate this, all we have to do is let an engine loose on ICC/FICS, which is done all the time.

Originally posted by incandenza
Or, by the exact same logic, you could have an engine which loses to all other engines, and yet beats all humans. Either proposition is absurd because we know they are both completely divorced from reality. An engine's performance vs. engines is fairly similar to its performance vs. humans. To demonstrate this, all we have to do is let an engine loose on ICC/FICS, which is done all the time.

I'm not sure about today, but a couple of years ago the strongest engine v. engine programs were not the strongest vs. human GMs. It seems odd, but the best engines vs. humans have to have enough opening DB or positional understanding to rip open a position in their favor, where in an engine vs engine game, there isn't any hiding behind walls of pawns in a closed game.