Stockfish No.1 It's Senseless to Buy a Chess Program!

[Anthony.R.Brown]

I really Don't understand Why! anyone with an Ounce of Intelligence would want to Buy a Chess Program...While Stockfish is No.1 ?

O.K I can understand it's Nice to see How Other Programs Analyse a Position or Play a Game But! Pay for it? If you want more Variety there are also Other Strong Free (3000)+ Programs!

Some more Recent Tests Below!

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2451


A.R.B

[stevenaaus]

Haha. It seems a no-brainer, doesn't it. But some people don't agree.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... =&start=50

[Anthony.R.Brown]

Haha. It seems a no-brainer, doesn't it. But some people don't agree.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... =&start=50

Yes!...The most Important thing is!...

It's Number 1 Because of Strength! and Price! 20 Odd Points from the Very Top Paid!? Program! at (3000) + ELO Ain't going to make any Difference to 99.9 % of Players!

Ratings list below...

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... t_all.html

A.R.B

[Jeremy Bernstein]

I prefer to think I have at least an ounce of intelligence (maybe 1.1 fl.oz.), and here's why: Stockfish (as released by stockfishchess.org) is inadequate for interactive analysis of human chess. First of all, its evaluations are exaggerated (way too high). Second, they jump all over the place. Third (and shared by many top engines), very sharp pruning eliminates potentially promising lines in quiet positions before they can be adequately searched. Fourth, no tablebase support (although many GUIs now have built-in tablebase support, so it's not such a big deal). The Stockfish PA_GTB project solves some of these issues, but I still find Stockfish's concept of "score" to be wrong. It's fine for playing, as its testing results demonstrate, but it's not a good analysis partner IMO.

Absolutism went out with modernity, by the way. Reasonable people can disagree without either of them being stupid. Just saying.

Jeremy

[thorstenczub]

stockfish is not number one. and even if it would be number one, hiarcs would still be a magnificent chess program. komodo dito.

[stevenaaus]

I do agree with the above posts... I actually don't use Stockfish for analysis (instead Firenzina and Critter), but do use it for tournament testing.... So perhaps my post was misleading.

But my point is, there are many free engines which are very comparable to the strongest. So buying a commercial one is not *necessary* imho. The free/community software revolution is here

[Anthony.R.Brown]

I prefer to think I have at least an ounce of intelligence (maybe 1.1 fl.oz.), and here's why: Stockfish (as released by stockfishchess.org) is inadequate for interactive analysis of human chess. First of all, its evaluations are exaggerated (way too high). Second, they jump all over the place. Third (and shared by many top engines), very sharp pruning eliminates potentially promising lines in quiet positions before they can be adequately searched. Fourth, no tablebase support (although many GUIs now have built-in tablebase support, so it's not such a big deal). The Stockfish PA_GTB project solves some of these issues, but I still find Stockfish's concept of "score" to be wrong. It's fine for playing, as its testing results demonstrate, but it's not a good analysis partner IMO.

Absolutism went out with modernity, by the way. Reasonable people can disagree without either of them being stupid. Just saying.

Jeremy

Most Humans using Chess Programs to Analyse... is a Short look at How Computers Play the Game! don't expect to Play the Rest of the Game in the same Way!
Even if the Engines Evaluation are Not Quite what we think they should be!? Best to just to Accept it Knows what it's doing while it Defeats (3000) + ELO Human Players!
The Extensive Ratings Test Below do the Talking!...as to Which Programs are Best!

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... t_all.html

It's Very Reasonable to Quote something Absolutely as being Correct if a (Person!) has Studied Something to an Extreme! backed up with Proof! But of course the Masses Sometimes Disagree!

A.R.B

[Steve Maughan]

I can think of two reasons:

* Style of play - Junior, HIARCS and Komodo all play different styles of chess
* To support the authors - full time computer chess programming is on the decline - maybe they don't want it to die out completely

Steve

[Anthony.R.Brown]

Hi Steve...

But what you have to Remember is that Chess Programming & Normal Computer Programming! Started out as Fun! a Hobby for Amateurs because they were Deeply interested in getting the Machines to do what they wanted them to...in an Intelligent faster than Human way!
Somewhere along the line People Started wanting & Demanding Money for their Products! Luckily the Amateurs are Back in fashion! So just like Windows v Linux it's time for the People only in it for Money! to Move Over!!


A.R.B

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Hi Steve...

But what you have to Remember is that Chess Programming & Normal Computer Programming! Started out as Fun! a Hobby for Amateurs because they were Deeply interested in getting the Machines to do what they wanted them to...in an Intelligent faster than Human way!
Somewhere along the line People Started wanting & Demanding Money for their Products! Luckily the Amateurs are Back in fashion! So just like Windows v Linux it's time for the People only in it for Money! to Move Over!!


A.R.B

The sheer nerve of these programmers, demanding money for their time... If you think that the programmers of commercial chess engines are only in it for the money, you either seriously overestimate the amount of money in computer chess or seriously underestimate the ability of those programmers to make that calculation themselves.

Luckily, there are plenty of free options for you out there, and plenty of commercial options for those who can/want to support the programmers who bust their hump. Everyone's happy!

jb