Microsoft Games For Windows 7 Chess Titans Download
Hedy Madrid
I used to be good at chess,maybe 1550 Elo,and could beat chess titans level 10 2 out of 5 games,but am just getting back into serious chess,what is chess titans level 10 rated?I would be really happy with 1700 Elo, but cannot seem to get better than 1250-1350. Why am I stuck at this level,I play very frequently,like 3-4 games a day? I have been playing pretty hard for pushing 2 years. I played casually for about 4 years before that.Does anyone have any advice?I submitted a game that I recently played. Do I show any potential to achieve my 1700 goal?
I can't find an earlier thread at the moment, but although somebody posted here years ago that they estimated Chess Titans to be rated about 1650-1700, a more recent estimate when I mentioned that in an unrelated thread was that Chess Titans was rated maybe 1800, which sounds closer to me.
I think anybody can get to 1700 and beyond. I beat Chess Titans on level 10 about 85% of the time now. I'm having to learn all over with chess.com's program, though, it seems, which must be about 1900 rating despite supposedly being 1600--definitely better than Chess Titans. In both cases the thing that made the most difference for me was knowing the openings. Unless you know the openings, you're going to be playing suboptimal moves, and with each suboptimal move your position declines several percent, so over time your position declines irrecoverably. Also, openings give you the best unit placement and suggest the best plans (assuming you know the plans associated with each opening). Another thing that helped me was learning some positional/opening tricks that I never found in any book, like playing P-QB3 or P-KB3 if you have a bishop on your 3rd rank (to protect against your opponent's N-B5 to attack that bishop). Another thing that helped was use of miniplans: making a knight outpost, doubling pawns, seizing an open file, opening the center whenever I got the two bishops, etc. And of course tactics, but computers will keep you on your toes for tactics about 3-4 moves deep. I believe I got lazy, though, since I reached a comfortable level of proficiency looking ahead only 3-4 moves against computers for years, so I was insufficiently motivated to search deeper, which meant I got stuck at a plateau. I found that stronger programs motivated me to get beyond that level, though I don't have enough rating points yet to prove I've advanced since then.
That was actually angainst another player,I was putting it on there to show you my playing style. Thanks for the compliment Ido not think it was diserved though.I forgot to make it clear who I was playing Sorry,about that,but thanks for the advice. If you can beat a 1600 level player 85% of the time,I would say you are awfully advanced.I will take your advice on chess openings.Thankyou very much for responding,I really appreciate it.
3-4 games per day? In my opinion it's too much. I'll explain:
In order to use all my potential in a game I like to play with G/60+30" (i.e., one hour for the game and 30 seconds of increment). This allows me to make my best moves without getting into time trouble. Therefore in the post analysis I can spot my worst mistakes (because as an amateur I make many of them) and then correct my thinking process.
But playing such long games tires anyone. So I play 3 games per week. Also it depends on the individual who plays...4 games per day is impossible for me but can be possible for you. Anyway I recommend you to focus on quality instead of quantity and make good analysis of your games.
Great link, Addicted! I'm going to have to test my hypothesis now by playing Chess Titans against chess.com on level 1600 for 2-3 games (unless somebody here beats me to it), to see if chess.com really is the stronger of the two even on that level.
Don't worry about differences between USCF and FIDE ratings, at least under 2200. On Glickman's page below, go to the paragraph that begins with "I devised a method to update...", and look for the link to the scatter plot. I'll also show the link to the scatter plot, but I wanted you to also have the link to Glickman's page.
If you study the scatter plot, I think you'll agree that on a macro scale, there is no difference between USCF and FIDE ratings below 2200 (and even much less than 200 rating points difference above 2200.) Of course, on a micro scale, it's important to know which data point you are.
your rating points are just numbers - what is important is how you play the position you are in.chances are you will find a better move if you analyze.l see people playing more than ten games at once -what's to enjoy. they just make moves.forget your rating - just play your game.
Chess Titan can't be particularly highly rated 1400 maybe? Just beat level 10 without a sweat and mated in 20 moves or so. The prog seems to have no clue about positional play and not sure if even calculates particularly well.
I finally got around to playing Chess Titans, in this case level 10, against chess.com's online program (called Computer), in this case V3 on Level 10. I expected Computer to win, which it did, but I didn't expect it to win so fast or so convincingly! I need to start playing against Computer more since that is much more challenging. Apparently it can see 5 moves ahead, and Chess Titans can't even find the best defense when Computer announces mate in 5, and instead loses in 3! I don't see a level associated with the new Computer, though, which is unfortunate since now we can't estimate Chess Titans' rating.
I decided to keep matching Chess Titans level 10 against Computer, while decreasing Computer's level until Chess Titans level 10 could beat it. The practical value for me is that once I find at which level the two programs are roughly equal in strength, I can start playing Computer at that level for practice, which will presumably gradually force me to increase my skill as I gradually increase the level of Computer. The practical value to others is that if Computer's rating can be determined, then Chess Titans' rating can be fairly well estimated.
Today I played Computer at level 9, then level 8, against Chess Titans level 10. Computer won every game, just as I expected. I expect Chess Titans won't be able to win or draw until Computer's level is down to about 5.
I'm still really surprised at how quickly and convincingly Computer beats Chess Titans, a program I thought was reasonably good. What an awesome opponent Chess must be on its highest level. (Wasn't V2's Computer level 10 at Elo 2000?) It's amazing to me to see Computer's positional score progressively show -5, -6, -7, -8, etc. for Chess Titans (meaning Chess Titan's position is down that many pawns) as the game progresses when only one pawn has been exchanged so far! Computer must be looking ahead so far that it knows Chess Titans is going to lose that much material, no matter what, in the next several moves. In one case Computer announced mate in seven moves, and it still had another couple squares to go to queen its pawn, which would then be captured. I'm impressed.
OK - per request I have played some games vs. Level 9. I have had some losses due to stupid moves, which therefore probably are not useful in calculating a playing strength. Here is a win that probably will be useful. I will try it some more, and if I get a draw I will post it.
I will try a draw (is not 2....c6 the Slav? above). Also, I thought that playing Black would be more conducive to draws. However, here is a win with Black. I will continue off and on as time permits and see what happens.
OK - one more. Here I was just shooting from the hip. Slav-ish, several symmetrical moves. But I ended up winning anyway. Rybka assigned significant advantage to Chess Titans up to a point, but then it dropped a piece due to a mating threat. I still was playing more or less instinctively. There were several points in the endgame where I had it in a mate-in-four or mate-in-two, but just didn't see it. This is all I can do for now. Over the next week or so, If I get a draw, or a significant loss (i.e. a loss not due to blunder) I will post it.
It's been brought to my attention that playing gambits might be one of the best ways to test a computer since the games test a computers most natural ability (to calculate) and in the sense giving them minimal odds (fully accepted gambits if not played properly the attack can just run out and be useless) I for one thing think that a lot more moves are forced in gambits so the computer may get a higher matching score with the computer than it normally would . What do you guys think ? Someone has even suggested "artificial odds" blundering certain pawns pieces based off opponents strength and I find this a bit interesting. For one it doesn't have to be a complete blunder for example 1.e4/f5 is considered to be a artificial way of blundering the f-pawn
Chessmaster (and All), i wonder if you can help me solve a problem. I'm an avid chess amateur, and sometimes play Chess Titans if nothing else is at hand. Several months ago, i was using a computer that didn't have any chess program loaded, so i tried downloading Chess Titans. I found an unregistered version that turned out to be a 'mutant.' It is by far the hardest chess program i've played, way harder than the Chess Titans i'm used to. It carries many of the same features and visuals, but boy is it tough. Any way i can learn more about this program? I wouldn't be surprised if it plays/thinks near GM level. Thanks.
Chess Titans is exclusive to Windows (Vista?) and I doubt Microsoft ever released it separately. What you downloaded must be some other software with the same name. As a side note, you should always be careful with software downloaded from the internet whose origin you don't know.
I don't have much interest in Chess Titans games since that's my standard chess partner at the moment, so I have many dozens of saved games I could post that I've played against it, if anybody's interested. Here's an example in case anybody is interested.
d3342ee215