batman_255
40 ( +1 | -1 )
Fritz 8 vs. Chessmaster 9000 Which do you guys think is better. Even though I currently use CM 9000, Fritz is very good. It plays so well. You think you are playing a human. The world champion of chess played it and was only came out with a draw. Now I've never heard anything about CM9000 doing that.
Chess Comes to Me as Water flows downhill
Lime T. Original Poem
Later--
More: Chess Games
tulkos
5 ( +1 | -1 )
fritz is better than chessmaster. NOOO DOUBT ABOUT IT! YOU WANNA ARGY?
More: Chess Boss
silverwolfwsc
19 ( +1 | -1 )
Fritz is stronger than chessmaster, but chessmaster has much more benefit for a lower rated player. It has many more tutorials and such.
Hard to say which one is "better" but fritz is certainly stronger.
More: Fics Chess
chess_champion
4 ( +1 | -1 )
fritz is superior... i agree with the above posters:)
More: Chess Rules
r_lawrence
55 ( +1 | -1 )
I've seen many people ... ... jump quickly on the 'fritz' band wagon (and I'm sure it's a 'stronger' engine) but Silverwolf makes the key observation. Why do you want a program? Chessmaster has lots of GREAT tutorial, training information and programs included. I find it great fun, challenging, and diverse enough to keep my interest with all of the player personalities and options.
Fritz may have the edge as far as analysis, but I think Chessmaster is strong enough for mere mortals under 2100 ELO to get top notch analysis as well as all of the options previously mentioned. For these reasons, I think Chessmaster is a better buy.
More: Chess
aggropolis
26 ( +1 | -1 )
Hey We are men. We want strong engines. I say more strong engines to the people, to the real men!
Seriously, I prefer Fritz since I only want ultimate depth of analyzing when I go through my games. When it comes to knowledge I get that from books.
More: Chess Academy
hardcorepawn
33 ( +1 | -1 )
I like Chessmaster. Chessmaster is strong enough to beat me, looks pretty nice and has loads of other features. Also my daughter likes the look of it and is getting interested in playing chess (she is only 6). The other day, she pulled off a surprising move and had me thinking for a while. At this rate I would imagine she will be beating me by the time she is 7 or 8.
More: Chess
chess_champion
335 ( +1 | -1 )
programs here is a list from a tournament... not on the best computers but the settings were equal...
Rating + - Games Won Av.opp
1 Shredder 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2768 27 -25 801 70% 2620
2 Fritz 8.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2760 27 -26 781 69% 2616
3 Deep Fritz 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2759 28 -27 694 69% 2621
4 Fritz 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2740 30 -29 574 64% 2635
5 Chess Tiger 15.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2724 26 -26 744 63% 2630
6 Shredder 6.0 Pad UCI 256MB Athlon 1200 2723 23 -22 991 63% 2632
7 Shredder 6.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2719 31 -30 547 62% 2631
8 Shredder 7.0 UCI 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2715 46 -43 258 63% 2622
8 Chess Tiger 14.0 CB 256MB Athlon 1200 2715 30 -30 557 61% 2636
10 Deep Fritz 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2713 30 -29 571 61% 2638
11 Gambit Tiger 2.0 256MB Athlon 1200 2710 29 -29 583 58% 2651
12 Junior 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2693 26 -26 719 56% 2653
13 Hiarcs 8.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2680 23 -23 908 54% 2650
14 Rebel Century 4.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2673 29 -29 590 60% 2603
15 Ruffian 1.0.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2670 32 -32 483 55% 2632
16 Chess Tiger 15.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2666 36 -35 391 54% 2639
17 Shredder 5.32 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2658 26 -26 699 51% 2649
18 Gandalf 4.32h 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2657 31 -31 514 53% 2633
19 Deep Fritz 7.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2652 40 -40 306 54% 2625
20 Deep Fritz 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2647 22 -21 1071 58% 2587
21 Gandalf 5.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2640 49 -50 202 46% 2672
22 Gambit Tiger 2.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2639 28 -27 674 64% 2537
23 Gandalf 5.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2636 25 -25 758 55% 2603
23 Junior 7.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2636 23 -22 965 61% 2556
25 Fritz 7.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2630 38 -37 348 53% 2607
26 Chess Tiger 14.0 CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2628 26 -25 753 59% 2565
27 Shredder 6.0 UCI 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2615 43 -43 264 52% 2605
28 Crafty 18.12/CB 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2613 27 -27 647 52% 2602
29 Gromit 3.11.9 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2610 44 -46 246 43% 2662
30 Shredder 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2605 25 -25 759 54% 2578
31 Yace Paderborn 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2603 35 -35 389 48% 2617
32 Hiarcs 8.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2585 33 -34 440 42% 2645
33 Rebel Century 4.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2567 52 -53 178 46% 2593
34 Nimzo 8.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2552 22 -22 1028 49% 2559
35 Gandalf 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2536 73 -68 102 60% 2462
36 Gandalf 4.32h 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2521 34 -34 418 52% 2506
37 SOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2518 17 -17 1687 42% 2577
38 Chessmaster 8000 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2515 44 -45 251 45% 2548
38 Goliath Light 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2515 21 -22 1107 38% 2604
40 Crafty 17.07/CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2492 22 -22 978 45% 2531
41 Crafty 18.12/CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2479 31 -32 516 34% 2594
42 MChess Pro 8.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2478 25 -26 753 40% 2549
43 Genius 6.5 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2475 29 -29 565 48% 2488
44 R30 v. 2.5 2274 41 -38 343 69% 2136
45 Mephisto London 68 030 36 MHz 2216 71 -63 122 68% 2080
46 Meph Genius 68 030 33 MHz 2195 43 -42 267 55% 2157
47 Chess Tiger 14.9 Palm m515 16MB 42MHz 2101 69 -74 100 39% 2180
48 Atlanta SH7000 20 MHz 2087 29 -27 667 68% 1956
49 Sapphire II 2009 34 -32 464 63% 1918
50 Chess Genius 1.5 Palm m515 16MB 42MHz 1870 69 -78 100 32% 2002
source: www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=974
(note: chessmaster 9000 is not there but it would do only a little better then its older version)
as stated many times before... rating is not the only factor determining relative chess program strengths... also note that chessmaster is tuned more for learning and such while fritz is more for analyzing and such (both programs are still good in many ways but each has an advantage over the other).
More: Free Chess
chess_champion
16 ( +1 | -1 )
more about chess programs i have about the same much chess programs as listed above and am running a tournament myself which i will post once it is done.
silverwolfwsc
22 ( +1 | -1 )
chessmaster is also only on the list once, and with a 450 MHz processor. many of the programs above it are running on a 1200mhz with double the memory. How is this any more fair than the other tournament you were referring to?
batman_255
16 ( +1 | -1 )
Processer Speed and Game Capabilities I play on a 1998 Dell with 40 gig hard drive and 1.7 Gigahertz of processer speed. I run on Chessmaster. I didn't think of Fritz 8.0 at the time, but it is superior to CM 9000.
chess_champion
105 ( +1 | -1 )
well didnt realize that but... chessmasters rating is still exaggerated... for example on my P100 it is 2500, on my P200 it is 2680, on my Duron 1ghz it is 2760, and on my P4 2.3ghz it is 2900! i am getting a P4 3.06 which will allow me to run programs on the same computer through the good multi tasking feature (what will its rating be then 3000+???) anyway i have previously run my own tournaments (the ones mentioned previously were not mine) choosing the top 10 programs i thought were best... these programs included fritz 8, deep fritz 7, fritz 7, chessmaster 9000, chessmaster 8000, chess tiger 15, gambit tiger 2.0, junior 7, shredder 6, and hiarcs 8.
the final results were:
1. fritz 8...
2. chess tiger 15...
3. deep fritz 7...
4. hiarcs 8...
5. gambit tiger 2.0...
6. fritz 7...
7. chessmaster 9000...
8. junior 7...
9. shredder 6...
10. chessmaster 8000
(one amazing thing to note: i played the worst programs on best computer and better programs on second best computer)
i know things like ram count so ill just say the higher the computers speed of mine the more ram it also has.
batman_255
27 ( +1 | -1 )
CM 9000 It depends on your processer speed. Thanks for all your answers. Dell makes a computer with 5.0 Gigahertz of processer speed. I wonder how powerful CM 9000 would be on that. Since I am new to chess, I use CM. It helps out a lot, and has many tutorials. How does Fritz compare?
winslow_hendershot
73 ( +1 | -1 )
GM Larry Christianson Larry played a promotional match with CM 9000 and was only able to come to a draw against the machine. I think this does not bode well for humans in chess. Our very best cannot beat the computers now. Granted the computers haven't beaten us either yet, but it won't be long, I am certain. I still can't believe Kasparov chickened out in the last game of his match...sheesh. I think the people with the computer's should not have accepted a draw. The computer would have won even if Garry had a better position because it never gets tired and never makes a mistake and never ceases to analyze ahead and find ways to resist. The humans will not stand a chance for long. It's a sad day.
chess_champion
57 ( +1 | -1 )
batman_255 plz give me some sort of proof that there is a 5ghz pc... like a website or something... im pretty sure your mistaken... there are duel pcs that are strong, 3.06ghz can be overclocked to 3.6ghz with super cooling which is the highest ive seen. as a matter of fact i am very curious of proof about a 5ghz pc... i find it quite amusing...
as for your question which has been asked plenty of times the answer is that fritz 8 is a more powerful program with a higher rating and it is better for analyzing compared to cm9k
chess_champion
19 ( +1 | -1 )
5 Ghz well this site says its coming out- not that it came out: www.theinquirer.net/?article=2462
crayons
36 ( +1 | -1 )
Chess_champion...5ghz isnt that unbelievable...they are testing insane stuff currently like 100ghz!!...well i think... i know for sure 50ghz... but still!! not practical at all yet though...with the best cooling they cant keep it running for more than a fraction of time...its also a rediculously large size as well
chess_champion
11 ( +1 | -1 )
with all that said... they are probably large super computers but i am talking about normal pcs for sale for the average person.
batman_255
kremator
silverwolfwsc
9 ( +1 | -1 )
Yeah, since they havent made a 4.5GHz chip yet ~3GHz is the fastest intel chip out yet, how could Dell be building 4.5GHz systems?
coyotefan
34 ( +1 | -1 )
Unless you are Master Level Both will kick your butt! I use CM9000 and like the tutorials. It really matters little which plays better. Until you can beat CM9000 on a regular basis buying Fritz would ba a waste of money. Same the other way around. If you own Fritz8 you need to kick its butt until going to CM9000.
kremator
62 ( +1 | -1 )
Coyotefan CM9k may have tutorials but they aren't of such great importance. The learning about chess is useful only for beggining players. The advanced tutorials are the only things that are useful. Those endgame puzzles are good and the annotated games by Josh Waitzkin, also the match of the masters holds learning value in it. Playing CM9K isn't fun though. The personalities are plain retarded and their play is fake. Fritz is much more humanlike so you can actually enjoy playing it. Also when studying Grandmaster games from books you can use the sophisticated Fritz's analysis to aid you in the study.
ir0nh0rse
23 ( +1 | -1 )
...? Why does it bother some people that computers can beat the best chess players? We have lost nothing if computers can beat us, and we have gained a tool to improve our own skill. I do not understand this fear...
furryfunbundle
39 ( +1 | -1 )
Ego... Imagine computers/robots replacing our other favourite past time (the opposite sex) what have we lost there....?
While not suggesting that chess is second best to the opposite sex (interesting poll sometime :-) our ability to stay on top (mmm - wonders if that is the correct metaphor) is important to us as humans. Loosing to computers may be probable but it is not tasteful...
<unwraps Ludite marching banner!!>
ir0nh0rse
31 ( +1 | -1 )
... Computers are our creation, we only beat ourselves. Being upset about the idea that a computer will beat you is like being upset that a perfect chess player could beat you. This all seems very childish. I did not expect this from the chess comunity.
furryfunbundle
119 ( +1 | -1 )
Don't stamp your foot!! You are obviously giving a lot of thought to this matter and in so doing perhaps treated a light hearted reply more harshly than it deserved.
You used the word "fear" earlier, I am not really convinced I fear being beaten by a computer... more saddened. Why so? Because chess cannot (should not??) be reduced to the single dimension of pure mathematics (indeed we marvel at the computational skills of computers to number crunch their way across the universe - there is no fear in that). Computers crunch numbers… and they do it so well.
But, they do not and will not (in their present construction at least) operate within the “spirit” and “soul” of life I suggest.
There is no musical cadence of a Mozart in a computer, there is no poetic metre of a Byron or a Chaucer in a computer (and not least), there is no fallibility of the individual in a computer.
But, for me all these really do exist in the game of chess (sadly the latter most of all).
Let computers mince digits together by all means but do not ask me take pleasure in their removing the humanity of the game of chess, because, then it is not a game... it is a science
(Of course this is my personal and as you say, childish, view. Please do not denigrate the rest of our “chess community” by extrapolating my views on them.)