Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.apps:463 comp.sys.mac.games:562
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!apple!apple.com!rmh
From: rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Chess Program -Do you know a good one?
Message-ID: <8545@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 5 Jun 90 18:07:22 GMT
References: <3513@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 56

In article <3513@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> halam2@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Haseen 
Alam) writes:
>  So basically CM2000 and SargonIII were playing with each other. [...]
> Whichever program started won the game

The player who moves first has an advantage. This is true for us humans as 
well as for computers. The proof is not so much by analysis as by checking 
the results of chess matches played over the last hundred years or so: 
statistically, white wins more often.

>  First I played at the lowest level on both, and then on the next higher
>  level.  The results were interesting, but the whole thing was getting 
boring
>  so I did not try out all the user levels.

Sounds like you didn't really mediate many games between the two programs. 
You'd probably need to play quite a few at each level to get any real 
notion of how the two stack up. It may not be worthwhile: since neither
program plays like you do (I assume - see below), which one beats the
other may not have much bearing on what kind of game each would give you.

> Results indicate both Sargon III and
>  ChessMaster 2000 are aggressive players.  [...]
>  But this knowledge makes these games less challenging, since
>  you can create traps by offering.

I have never seen a computer chess program that played "like a human 
being". They have their strengths and weaknesses, as we have ours; if you 
learn a program's weakness and play to it, you'll do better against it, 
just as you would playing to a human's weak points. I'm not well familiar 
with the Mac's programs (I have Sargon III but haven't used it much) but I 
remember a program on a mainframe that played tactically well (leave a 
piece weakly protected and you'd lose it every time) but strategically 
poorly (little notion of proper development once its opening book was 
exhausted, poor control of the center), and it was terrible at end games. 
The way to beat it was to play a conservative, defensive game, while 
trading pieces evenly as quickly as you could. Your goal was to reach the 
end game quickly while remaining even in material and perhaps superior in 
position. Then you could clean up fairly easily.

I've never liked computer opponents, since I like to concentrate on a 
strategic game, while they generally force me to focus on short-term 
tactics instead. But this just means that they're playing to *my* 
weakness. Sargon III on my Mac Plus could whup me regularly at a low 
setting, so you should take my comments with a grain, if not a bag, of 
salt. :-)

BTW, I like Sargon III and have been considering getting Sargon IV for my 
Mac II.

==========================================================================
Rick Holzgrafe              |    {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh
Software Engineer           | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1          rmh@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc.        |  "All opinions expressed are mine, and do
20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 77-A |    not necessarily represent those of my
Cupertino, CA 95014         |        employer, Apple Computer Inc."