11496 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I played a relaxing game against chessmaster a computer character called Kanna who should be rated 1590I played not good in the game, I listened to loud music almost dancing in my chair but I could without thinking beat Kanna because Kanna kept hanging pieces.I can't believe I ever had a hard time beating a character in chessmaster lower than 1500. but I think it could be harmful to me or any other to use this as training, because I could make a lot of errors and get away with it.chessmaster even wrote after the game:Amazing victory against a stronger opponent!No 1590 would play like this, only if very tired.
Gifts you two pieces, then allows a discovered attack on the queen to get a queen and pawn for bishop and rook, then gives you the exchange.
I think they messed up the AI on that one.
Chessmaster is a good training program in many ways, as long as you don't think of the AI opponents as real chess players. I think it randomly plays the third best move or something, because it definitely blunders at times no normal opponent ever would. Similarly, if you try to checkmate even the worst opponents, they will suddenly play like grandmasters to get out of it.
Is it realistic chess? No. Can you use it to train? Absolutely. Just pick tougher opponents.
subtract 300 points from their rating to get a better idea on what their "actual" rating is. That goes for the ICC computer characters as well.
Does it go for chess.com computers as well?
My brothers done many test on this he finally came to a conclusion which was to subtract 371-400 from all personatlaties to get a accurate reading on them.
I've literarly seen players in the 900s play better than that.
I think it should be taken into account that the programmers are trying to imulate human qualities and tendencies. I bet if you played that same personality 10 games in a tournament setting you would see that they perhaps even play better than the elo said to be for the character. I have a ChessMaster program too. I have noticed in casual unrated games or games with shorter time controls, players wont do as well as rated games in longer time controls. They play even better still in tourney play usually.
Besides this, give yourself some credit when dealing with the likes of ChessMaster. Sometimes you will also play better than the elo it has assigned you. I beat Josh Waitzken's 1800 character as a 1400. I beat a character named Jade(2235 elo) by first running her low on time and then unleashing an attack that seemed insurmountable but, I left one flaw that could have totally changed the game. Apparently Jade didn't see it and time ran out for her.I chalk these things up to not only my own good play but the computer's program trying to behave as a human might.
I also played GM Bogoljubow to what was most likely going to be a draw by repititon or a win for me due to time running out. I chose the 40 moves in 120 minutes the an additional of 60 minutes added after move 40. I got very bored moving pieces back and forth over and over behind our respective walls of well placed pieces. I got complacent and gave away a game due to my lack of discipline. I had never tried that length of match before. The point is, those characters can be beaten, by someone lower rated than them.
Computers don't know how to imitate genuine human blunders, they may hang pieces, but not make a slight blunder on purpose. Thats one thing we're still better at!
I would say a gambit that could work, that is misplayed leaving you down a pawn could qualify under these pretenses.
I look at the engine intentionally losing a pawn it could keep and still play a shrewd tactical series, as a sort of gambit type of behavior, though the computer is trying to use a formula that creates a particular material/position advantage to emulate an elo's level of play.
You did a great job regardless of Chessmaster 10th Edition play. I am saying 10th Edition because I do not have much dealings with the newer version. Anyways, even if it did blunder... I believe the benefits of Chessmaster 10th Edition is psychological. It boosts your morales. It gives you hope that you can achieve better in life. That is what I really like about the program. There is a test in there by Bruce Pandolfini. I believe he is one of the Grandmasters who had input into the game's making. You should take the test and see what you came up with. It uses a formula to calculate your Elo. Mine came out pretty close to my best score.
What system is that edition for? I can't seem to find any for my PS3.
There is something like that in the original Chessmaster for PS2.
There is another thing to consider: if you were running a lot of programs in the background on your computer, that will cause fluctuations in the strength of the program, as will the quality of the computer itself. You can depend on a PC with an i7 processor playing better than a computer with a Pentium III.
Not to think you would do such a thing... however there is also the answers there too... so I suggest you do yourself a favor and not look at it until you complete the exam. You want an accurate rating if you have the test available. Thank you for reading!
I have taken each section of the exam. The trouble I find with it is that it can be memorized and retaken. Time isn't a factor either. No credit is given to partially correct answers. Just as I have said before, memorizing the answers to puzzles may help you in a game situation or two once in a while, but generally it isn't going to change you actual rating necessarily.
I agree. So hopefully you will forget and take it in ten years and find out that you are a master by then.
I like your optimism, except for the time table...
I am being realistic... you want the worst case scenario. So you are not let down if it does not happen. hehe I can do exactly 1400 Elo once so far. However my diagnostic exam tells me I am 1467 approximately. So I might have increased in skill by a bit. I take the exam seriously. So I actually spend a lot of time on each question. I spend long enough time so that I feel it is the best answer I could give at the moment having thought out as far as I could go at my level. Anyways, to make a long story short... I encourage you to be the best you can be and do your homework. I always get straight As usually when I do my homework. So you could be a master in 8 years instead of ten [That was a slight joke].
What is you favorite thing about Carlsen?
by Ghost_of_P_M 3 minutes ago
12/9/2013 - Mate in 3
by dufferps 4 minutes ago
So few long game seeks
by B-Lamberth 4 minutes ago
Good beginner video playlist?
by Spiritbro77 9 minutes ago
no response from members.....
by WineTasters 15 minutes ago
1st Unofficial Chess.com Swiss Championships
by cmtavernier 23 minutes ago
by Ronald_Aprianto 24 minutes ago
The nation has set up a standout amongst the most effective frameworks to overs
by avgdozhl 24 minutes ago
Morphy vs B00
by Sutirtha11 25 minutes ago
anyone have difficulty on real boards vs computer ones?
by AssauIt 29 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!