This may be beating a dead horse but, There is a reason that humans often score lower than thier normal elo, against computers in the lower elo bracket, anyway lets say sub 1800. While I'm not going to give away the house here I'll go ahead and say its the reason ones elo is low in the first place,and I'm excluding stupid errors as the reason. Now I'm certainly not a Gm and I will post a game that I played against chessmaster personality 1321 elo Eric. I have certainly beat it at higher elo but this game proves my point better. Don't bother me telling me certain moves were dumb ,etc overall the game was ok but as I said it proves my point about computer vs human play.This was a rated game and I must say that the computer does seem to play harder rated.I'm white, notice how the computer does try and go for the draw when all is lost by 3 move repition.this game is real its not retouched or gone through and adjusted with better moves etc. What is my point do you think?

[Event "Chessmaster: Grandmaster Edition Rated Game"]
[Site ""]
[Date "2009.4.25"]
[Round ""]
[White "jason"]
[Black "Eric"]
[TimeControl "960"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO " "]

1.e4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e5 Bg4 4.d4 Qa5+ 5.Bd2 Qb6 6.b3 Na6 7.Bc3 e6 8.Be2 Be7 9.O-O Nb4 10.Bxb4 Qxb4 11.c3 Qb6 12.Nbd2 Bb4 13.cxb4
Qxb4 14.Qc2 Ne7 15.a3 Qb6 16.Rfe1 Bxf3 17.Nxf3 Nf5 18.Qd3 h6 19.b4 a5 20.g3 axb4 21.axb4 Rxa1 22.Rxa1 Qxb4 23.Ra8+ Kd7 24.Rxh8
Qb2 25.Qd2 Qxd2 26.Nxd2 Nxd4 27.Kf1 c5 28.Rb8 c4 29.Bxc4 dxc4 30.Nxc4 Kc7 31.Ra8 Nf3 32.Kg2 Ne1+ 33.Kf1 Nf3 34.Kg2 Ne1+ 35.Kh1
Nd3 36.Ra2 f5 37.f3 f4 38.Rd2 b5 39.Rxd3 bxc4 40.Rc3 fxg3 41.Rxc4+ Kb6 42.hxg3 Kb5 43.Rc7 g5 44.Re7 h5 45.Rxe6 Kc4 46.Rd6 Kc5
47.Rd1 g4 48.fxg4 Kb4 49.e6 Kc3 50.e7 Kc2 51.Rd8 Kc3 52.e8=Q Kb4 53.Qc6 Ka3 54.Rb8 hxg4 55.Qa6# 1-0

My opinion is that a lot of lower players play the game one move at a time or at the most 3 moves ahead. If you have played chess for a while there should not be a point when you look at the board and not know what to do. sometimes that might be to just resign. The problem with constantly looking like 3 moves deep is that positional play becomes ignored. In the game I played above you see that I didn't panic when the computer had more pawns than me on the one side, I just got rid of them with my bonus bishop. I guess my point is that you gotta play the game like chess not checkers.

quote:

Originally posted by killerwoks:
...I guess my point is that you gotta play the game like chess not checkers.

It doesn't sound like you had a point to begin with, especially with a conclusion like that.

Many people brag about how many moves ahead they calculate; but any tutorial (including the ones in Chessmaster) tells you that you have to "avoid mechanical thinking". In other words, you have to combine foresight with positional play. The same thing goes for openings... good tutorials will warn you against memorizing openings and tell you not to forget the middlegame and the endgame.

So what you've said is no great revelation.

I just recently, within the past few weeks, purchased a copy of the latest Chessmaster for the PC. I own, and still occasionally play, Chessmaster for the Playstation 2. I have noticed a great difference between the two games.

Not to be negative about what you've posted here, I'm just merely adding my perspective, I will say that this version, for the PC, plays much sloppier than the version for the PS2.

Keep in mind that I am pretty much a beginner at Chess. I've known how to move the pieces and have known a few little tricks since I was a child, but I really had no one to play against growing up, so I never really had much exposure to the game, and consequently never really learned how to play the game properly.

When I bought the PS2 version a couple of years ago, I started playing, and learning from that, but it was only occasionally, when I had a little time. In the past month or two, I have been playing both versions frequently, trying to become proficient at Chess. I've also been working with a few books and studying the tutorials in both versions. I am far from a seasoned veteran, as I have yet to put all of these concepts together. I make beginner mistakes. Sometimes I squeak out a win, sometimes I get stomped upon by my opponent, mostly the computer. In other words, I have a long way to go before I can say that I really know how to play the game properly.

With that said; I have found the PS2 version to be brutal in comparison to the PC version. Playing the same personalities on both, I get pummeled on the PS2, but I win easily on the PC. I struggle against a personality with a 350 rating on the PS2, but find very little challenge against a personality with a 900 rating on the PC. I am unsure as to why this is.

Playing rated games or tournaments on both yields much different results for me, depending on which platform that I'm playing on. Games that I blow through easily on the PC, I struggle, then lose on the PS2.

On the PC I have a rating of nearly 1100, something that a beginner like me shouldn't actually have, I suspect. On the PS2, I've managed to claw my way up to a whopping 457 (the highest that I've achieved in the version so far).

That's a huge difference, as you can obviously see, and I'm not sure why it exists. I'm not playing any differently when I switch from one version to the other, I use the same tactics and openings on both, so I can only conclude that the personalities play much differently, depending on which version that I'm playing.

Was there a change in how the ratings system is calculated between the release of the games, or is there some other reason that the games play quite differently?

[Addendum]: I found this in the FAQ:

"Q: Does CPU speed have any effect on Personality ratings?
A: Yes; the rating for most of the personalities will change depending on CPU speed. Also, because the CPU speed calculation is performed every time Chessmaster is started, the same personality can have different ratings between sessions."

However, seeing as my computer is less than 6 months old, I should be having much tougher opponents on my PC, not the other way around.

I wonder if my game installed properly on here.
[End addenum]

Unfortunately, I can't say anything definite about the PS2 version, as I don't own a PS2.

However, it's not a surprise that the personality ratings are different between the two versions. The same thing happened with the PC versions a while ago... some personalities were adjusted so some were higher, some lower. Why that was, I don't know.

Interesting. I wonder if they were changed to give beginning players a little more access to the game. I found myself being a little discouraged when playing the PS2 and found that I had more opponents to choose from on the PC. Perhaps that was the reasoning behind it.

Make sure you look at the whole board and then try to make your best decision. Not sure who came up with the whole candidate move idea but I happen to like it.
Why the nasty attitude khollister,I was trying to strike up some conversation with members and your pulling out the flamethrower,implying I'm some kinda doofus. Are you the welcome comittee,or what?

Maybe because your two posts don't make any sence. At least for him, me, and possibly for others too.

quote:

What is my point do you think?

That you don't like horses?
That you own a house?
That you are not a grandmaster?
That it is something wrong if your opponent tries to bail out with 3-fold repetition?
That we shouldn't look ahead?
That we should play chess instead of checkers?


I have no idea.


Can you elaborate what you wanted to say? Then maybe we can discuss.

quote:

Originally posted by killerwoks:
Make sure you look at the whole board and then try to make your best decision. Not sure who came up with the whole candidate move idea but I happen to like it.
Why the nasty attitude khollister,I was trying to strike up some conversation with members and your pulling out the flamethrower,implying I'm some kinda doofus. Are you the welcome comittee,or what?

I don't have a nasty attitude, nor was I flaming you. All I did was say that you didn't have a point, and that many of the things you said were nothing new.

I'm all for conversation... but understand that doesn't mean everyone will agree with what you say.