Best is a relative term. Strongest chess program seems to be Rybka. Seems to me that ChessMaster is a strong program, but it is not near the top programs in program vs. program playing strength. ChessMaster's strengh to me is the number of computer generated opponents it offers. ChessMaster 10 does have a GM level playing strength to a near zero rated opponent.
Originally posted by chesskid001If you are talking to me I refered to the many playing styles and playing strengths that ChessMaster offers. I did state that ChessMaster was weaker then the top programs.
Are you talking in terms of instructive level, or playing strength. As others have previously mentioned, it is strong, but there are far superior programs in terms of playing strength. However, I find it instructive for weak players like myself
In terms of overall playing strength, Chessmaster is weaker than Fritz and co. but not dramatically so.
The software interface and features bear no comparison to Fritz, except to beginners who sometimes find the CM lessons more accessible. Chessmaster's ability to analyze your RHP games (after they end, of course) pales beside the capabilities of Fritz, much as Rush Limbaugh's analysis of foreign policy is a joke beside that of, say, John Kerry.
Originally posted by gambit3I wasn't necessarily talking mainly to you, but to the original poster. And I was not citing the different playing strengths of ChessMaster, but its lessons etc.
If you are talking to me I refered to the many playing styles and playing strengths that ChessMaster offers. I did state that ChessMaster was weaker then the top programs.
Originally posted by WulebgrI have Fritz 7, which came without any instruction manual as to how to use it. Just how DO you analyse games with it? Thanks.
Chessmaster's ability to analyze your RHP games (after they end, of course) pales beside the capabilities of Fritz....
Originally posted by gambit3The problem is that just like every other program the playing strengths offered are utter crap. They don't play like a human in the slightest.
If you are talking to me I refered to the many playing styles and playing strengths that ChessMaster offers. I did state that ChessMaster was weaker then the top programs.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI know this. It seems to me that there is a big difference in playing strength and playing style. Tell Kasparov that loss to Deep Blue means nothing seeing that it has a non human playing style.
The problem is that just like every other program the playing strengths offered are utter crap. They don't play like a human in the slightest.
Originally posted by XanthosNZeg. say you set your engine to play at 1000 elo strength. At this level, it will will lots of drastic blunders, but not in the same way as a human 1000 player. When humans make mistakes, it's primarily due to a misconception and there's a reason for the bad move. When the computer makes mistakes, it's just random as hell
The problem is that just like every other program the playing strengths offered are utter crap. They don't play like a human in the slightest.
Originally posted by gambit3But the lower rated playing styles in chessmaster are created by making the engine play blunders combined with changing the engine's evaluation constants slightly. And the top rated styles are just modifications of the engine parameters (how much it values open files or space say) and you can do that with more control in the Chessbase family.
I know this. It seems to me that there is a big difference in playing strength and playing style. Tell Kasparov that loss to Deep Blue means nothing seeing that it has a non human playing style.