Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Chess Titan Windows Vista ????

Jump to forum:
 
12th January 2009, 10:00pm
#1
by hchdez
Managua Nicaragua
Member Since: Mar 2008
Member Points: 108

Does anyone knows what are the ratings for the differents levels with Chess Titans on Windows Vista???

I actually play in level 8 or 9 (9 always beat me), and I would like to know with what kind of rating I am playing with this program

16th January 2009, 01:13am
#2
by icedown
Arkansas United States
Member Since: Jan 2009
Member Points: 8

Just for fun I put it up against Little ChessPartner on this site and so far LCP is whooping it 10-0 on Hard(LCP) vs lvl 10(CT). 

23rd September 2011, 01:52am
#3
by SUNANDAV
INDIA India
Member Since: Sep 2011
Member Points: 1
hchdez wrote:

Does anyone knows what are the ratings for the differents levels with Chess Titans on Windows Vista???

I actually play in level 8 or 9 (9 always beat me), and I would like to know with what kind of rating I am playing with this program


23rd September 2011, 03:27am
#4
by vowles_23
Perth Australia
Member Since: Apr 2010
Member Points: 2657

I would say that level 10 is roughly 1800, level 8 ~ 1650, level 6 ~ 1500. 
MAYBE. Hard to tell because in the games I played, the standard varied a lot, and it was a while ago. 

23rd September 2011, 03:49am
#5
by vowles_23
Perth Australia
Member Since: Apr 2010
Member Points: 2657
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
vowles_23 wrote:

I would say that level 10 is roughly 1800, level 8 ~ 1650, level 6 ~ 1500. 
MAYBE. Hard to tell because in the games I played, the standard varied a lot, and it was a while ago. 


No way, not a chance.  With no offense meant to anyone, level 10 is 1200 at the strongest.  You can horizon it at 3 moves, it has no idea how to play any types of positions, and its only strength is not hanging pieces - it's just flat out terrible.


Might I point out that a 1200 does not have the strength of not hanging pieces?

23rd September 2011, 05:51am
#6
by -waller-
Durham/Worcs England
Member Since: Apr 2009
Member Points: 1507

I'd say level 10 is probably somewhere between RD and vowles_23's estimates. 1200s do not have much positional understanding AT ALL and do still hang pieces from time to time, but 1800s are strong players. I'd put level 10 somewhere near 1350-1400.

23rd September 2011, 06:10am
#7
by -waller-
Durham/Worcs England
Member Since: Apr 2009
Member Points: 1507

Just tested it out again, it played the Sicilian Najdorf and then shuffled all its pieces around aimlessly whilst I ripped open its kingside and mated it. All on autopilot. It didn't make any silly moves, but it didn't try any sort of counter-attack lol.

23rd September 2011, 08:43am
#8
by vowles_23
Perth Australia
Member Since: Apr 2010
Member Points: 2657
-waller- wrote:

Just tested it out again, it played the Sicilian Najdorf and then shuffled all its pieces around aimlessly whilst I ripped open its kingside and mated it. All on autopilot. It didn't make any silly moves, but it didn't try any sort of counter-attack lol.


Really? Well played in that case :P
Yes I admit that my previous estimate was a bit high. My rating OTB is ACF 1600 and I can beat it, so that makes sense.
But I do think that it is difficult to put a rating on it, for the main reason that it doesn't play as the rating group into which you classify it would.
A low rating = bad tactics and positional play, where the computer only has bad positional play, it rarely hangs pieces at a higher setting.
A high rating = good tactics and positional play, but it doesn't fit this either.

23rd September 2011, 08:59am
#9
by -waller-
Durham/Worcs England
Member Since: Apr 2009
Member Points: 1507

Yeah, I know what you mean. Its the same reason I don't like playing against computers. Just feels unnatural - no human player would play the way it plays.

23rd September 2011, 09:02am
#10
by vowles_23
Perth Australia
Member Since: Apr 2010
Member Points: 2657
-waller- wrote:

Yeah, I know what you mean. Its the same reason I don't like playing against computers. Just feels unnatural - no human player would play the way it plays.


Yup, I think Garry Kasparov was of the same opinion after losing his first game to Deep Blue, the computer played some very unusual moves that no human would have been able to calculate successfully for a win.

 

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.