Author: Chessfun
Date: 13:48:08 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 ran null_low 5 for a while and again found that it was weaker than the default. >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. Could be null_low 4 combined with nval 1 is stronger? >I built a book out of 510,000 games. Its only 110 megs in size ;). Biggest I could manage was 70 Mb's. I did at one point get a 112 Mb book out of a 1 GB database but could not run more than 20 Ply due to processor and ram so I stayed with the 70 Mb book. >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. Again the Yace at my Young Talents + blitz was with null_low 4 and when I ran separate against the others it did much better. That was pre 5 BTW. Sarah. >JW
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.