Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
Until the early-90s I was able to beat everything computer-related that you could buy on the public market, wether it be board-computer or PC-amiga-atari-related, if only I took my time and analysed in mail-chess fashion. These times are long over.  +  As far as players of my level are concerned, computers have become the masters. You can safely buy which you like best by the looks, the playing strength of the engine must not worry you and is no argument in the buying decision anymore - chances are it will slaughter you anyway if you do not use minimal calculation times, handicap levels and artificial brakes. Or you play over hours and days, and anaylse as intensive as in correspondence chess. |
I have only Chessmaster X on the pc and can't beat it.
Thats why I prefer to play against dedicated chess computers.
Its way more fun. At least from time to time I can say I won, something I will never be able to do with Chessmaster at the highest level of difficulty.
So for me 1990 dedicated computer elo level is more than enough.
What I would like to see on the other hand, is chess engines becoming more intelligent not only in terms of brute force but in term of strategic thinking. Most of these programs are very powerful because of the immense opening libraries they have. Ever wondered what happens to a chess program that exits its opening library on the first move or doesn't use one? Its a massacre for it. The real goal should be to design a chess engine that doesn't base its knowledge on opening libraries or on endgame tables. Brute force can only take you so far.