This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
Recently GNU Chess 5.07 64-bit JA (Jim Ablett's compile) was introduced into CCRL 40/4 rating list, where it's rating is now 2372 Elo points without opening book and 2328 Elo points with general opening book. 333ES (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strength improves with the passage of time as computers get faster, but since the ratings are by playing against other machines with the same total time per game, typically the time allowed per move or per game doesn't affect ratings dramatically (although no doubt some programs will make better use of time than others). 5.08 is substantially stronger than 5.07 because a number of issues with the eval function were fixed, but GNU Chess 6 is using algorithms not present in the FSF 5 releases and is better code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.158.52 (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the point was in replacing one gnome/ubuntu chess image with another, but the position in the new image doesn't even make any sense. Arvindn05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]