How strong is Chessmaster 10th Edition?

For all of you saying it isn't the strength it says, this is because you are not playing a real human and so the intimidation factor is next to nill. So playing a 1800 on CM is plain skill. The computer isn't going to brag or no award is at stake. But say that you have to play that same 1800 CM to save the world of win a tournament. Then we'll see how much more difficult it is. The best way to get the most from a computer program level strength is to ask a friend or family member to move the pieces for the computer in OTB play. Then the pressure will increase as you may feel you have something to prove. Remember, Performance Rating (Tournament) vs Skill Rating (Against computer at home sitting in you pajamas with no one watching or caring, no pressure less mistakes). Get it.

Yeah don't let computer ratings go to your head, Fritz gives itself 3200 points on its highest setting whereas it thinks I'm an "expert" lol! 

Never take computer rating estimates seriously. Never. On. Any. Device. Nor. With. Any. Software.

Having said that, at full strength, CM 10 is quite strong. Only a little weaker than the best commercial engines. Every weakened CM personality, however, is weakened in an unrealistic manner that makes the rating estimate worth than useless. An 1800 personality will make errors that would be unusual for an intoxicated 1400 human, but otherwise play at 2200 strength.

If you want a chess engine that is realistically weakened, sparring mode on any of the ChessBase engines is your best bet. 

Believe me im Intoxicated and i Cant solve the most elementary puzzles, totally blind even a 800 player could solve them

Computer programs play more "objectively". If, for example, the engine determines that the best course of action is hunker down and to play for a draw, it will do so. Nor will the computer normally take risks if it leads to a worse position.

It is different for people, for example, an IM will play one way if he/she needs only a draw for a GM norm, play a different way if he/she needs a win for a GM norm, and would probably not use opening preparation if he/she still gets the GM norm with a loss.

At more amateur levels between two players, higher rated players sometimes (not always) will push much harder than normal against a lower rated player out of pride.

@OP, it depends upon ur playing style, people who play close games and are positional players, generally have more success against computer. My experience most beginner level players play open games and rely on tactic. I assume your tactic trainer rating is not that high. 

If you are doing good against high rated bot at chess master, you are a positional player which to me a good thing.

Contrary is true for players who has higher ratings against humans than against chessmaster bots :)

MervynS wrote:

Computer programs play more "objectively". If, for example, the engine determines that the best course of action is hunker down and to play for a draw, it will do so. Nor will the computer normally take risks if it leads to a worse position.

It is different for people, for example, an IM will play one way if he/she needs only a draw for a GM norm, play a different way if he/she needs a win for a GM norm, and would probably not use opening preparation if he/she still gets the GM norm with a loss.At more amateur levels between two players, higher rated players sometimes (not always) will push much harder than normal against a lower rated player out of pride.

Thats why i had to watch unimportant tournaments, or think its not so sure if anand doesnt play differently in the wc

Even if Carlsen also didnt play its best in the candidates, im prety sure his opponents cared more for that...

It seems to me no1 ever takes this things into consideration

Yes, the derated personalities have flaws of making silly blunders followed by "playing out of their mind" at GM level :-)

I have found CM useful for loading PGN files of my own games, then replaying to completion from point of any mistake against any personality.  Sometimes, I even let the 2977 CM play in my place to identify any winning chances I may have overlooked.

Chessmaster® XI Grandmaster Edition is a wonderful, wonderful teaching program.  I bought this a couple of years ago when I knew almost nothing about the game.  My son started playing in scholastic tournaments a few years ago and I wanted to find a good teaching program.  I bought CM XI and together my son and I learned a fantastic amount from Josh Waitzkin's chess academy. The interactive tutorials are outstanding for stimulating student thinking. I have given it the highest recommendation to parents of beginning scholastic players.

I contacted Ubisoft about a year ago since CM is no longer widely available for purchase. Sadly, Ubisoft said they lost some licensing rights. I think it is a tragic loss that Ubisoft stopped supporting and selling the program.  I paid under $20 in 2010, but now finding a reasonably priced copy of the program next to impossible. 

If anyone knows of an alternative chess teaching program anything like CM, please post info in this forum

I wish there was an online petition to get Ubisoft to bring back this phenomenal teaching program back to the marketplace.

Dear Ubisoft: Bring back Chessmaster!

I also liked chessmaster and to be honest, maybe i just too Weak to judge but back then i found the personalities in chessmaster nice. And to me they played like real Players...

All commercial engines are better than Chessmaster. They are better at mimicking weak play. They are much better for post-game analysis (see http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2009/12/chessmaster-versus-fritz-analysis.html). They are infinitely better as database applications.

However, none have the abundance of elementary teaching materials available with Chessmaster. Thankfully, g-d invented YouTube. Chess.com is pretty solid too.

Ofc for Analysis Fritz is better, but back then i thought chessmaster was mimicking better Weak play...

But as i Said i was very weak back the so My memory might be flawed

Ubisoft probably discontinued Chessmaster for pretty much the same reasons why Microsoft discontinued their Flight Simulator series.

Both series have their roots in the 1980s, back when both chess programs and flight simulators, though quite primitive, were considered by the general public as impressive and interesting, and as such were commercially successful. That popularity has been slowly diminishing over the years due to various factors, only to reach a point (about 2008) where they were deemed not to be commercially viable as a mainstream product anymore. Nowadays you still have flight simulators on the market, just as you have chess software, but current programs are targeted at a relatively small group of devoted enthusiasts rather than everybody like 20 years ago.

A possible scenario of Ubisoft reviving Chessmaster that I could come up with would be Carlsen winning the WC title, this fact somehow tangibly increasing mainstream popularity of chess, and Ubi striking a deal with him and having Carlsen replace Waitzkin as the "face" of Chessmaster in a new "Chessmaster 12: World Champion Edition" (Ubi had previously gone all-in with a "Grandmaster Edition", and that would arguably need to be topped somehow anyway). The "Searching for Bobby Fischer" movie (the popularity of which was to a considerable extent piggybacking Chessmaster in the 90s and beyond) is now two decades old, and Waitzkin himself actually left chess long ago as well, so that's old cards that can't really be played anymore.

A new version would probably involve quite a bit of work - virtually all of the personality photos would finally need to be replaced, as most of them just scream "90s" (they previously already reduced the color saturation to make this less striking, but there is only so much you can do by editing). The whole endeavor might still be questionable though, given that there's the factor of chess websites (like this one, and others) which nowadays would constitute formidable competition to a mainstream chess program such as Chessmaster.

I think people vastly overestimating the appeal of Carlsen.

Do people really look at Carlsen and say: WoW he is such a cool guy, now chess looks interesting to us???

ofc the match is interesting, but people who dont really care dont say: well this is the coolest guy on earth i have to start playing chess now.

depends when i was a kid 40 yeah old jackie chan would still have been cooler than any 14 year old justin bieber, even though jackie chan probably was younger when i was a kid

to be honest even a 50 year TOshiro mifune would have been cooler than  a 14 year old to me. but i guess everyone is different

even if we stick to sport to me a 40 year Maradonna was way cooler than all the young guns...

I also believe jordan with 40 would have been coller than a young one

have you seen nobody with Terrence hill and  Henry Ford (i believe it was him)

to be honest as a kid i found Henry Ford way cooler how he laid there and shot the wild bunch...

sorry prozac i always misread everything

so what else do you do with 40 then, just resignt to the fact that your life is over??