Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 11:48:24 09/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2000 at 14:38:07, Jason Williamson wrote: >Not to much differnt from the default, I just add nul_low 4, and nval 1. I also >do: > >resign >with the threshold -9 for 5 moves. > >My opinion on null_low 4 is that its better at faster time controls, weaker at >slower. But its still seems to be doing ok on the ICC regardless. Wonder what >would happen if i tried null_low 5 ;). > >I use nval 1 because Yace was pitching 2 minors for a r and p way to much. I >don't see that as much anymore and as a result, Yace plays much stronger. > >I built a book out of 510,000 games. Its only 110 megs in size ;). > >I did a test run with null_low 4 vs 10 other engines, the resulting rating for >null_low 4 landed up being 40 points higher then the default. Of course, I >figure it needs more testing to be sure, but as I said, I suspect that null_low >4 is good for quick time controls. Your settings sound very reasonable, though I haven't experimented with nval yet :o). It could be that null_low 4 is better for blitz, because I primarily tested 40/10' on my Athlon. I'm also using nmoves and inctime, but they're not that good for blitz IMO, so there's not much for me to complain about. Darn! :o) Mogens
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.