Author: James T. Walker
Date: 16:38:42 12/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 1998 at 16:05:53, Dan Kiski wrote: >On December 02, 1998 at 13:44:08, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On December 02, 1998 at 13:32:15, Joe T. Pangilinan wrote: >> >>> Is the CM6000 set to Pilz setting to give it the maximum strength or the >>>default CM setting? >> >>Hello Joe, >>It is set to the default settings with the exception of setting the hash table >>size to "26" which I believe is 64 meg of hash tables. I have seen no "Proof" >>of the Pilz settings working with CM6000. Since it's pretty new I haven't heard >>of anyone proving that the default settings are not the best. I'll go with the >>programmer untill someone can prove different. >>Jim Walker > > >Jim, > >As has been proved countless times and posted over and over here and at other >boards, the Pilz settings far exceed the CM default settings. > >As far as Hash table size why on earth would you set to 26?. > >And following which I posted just a couple of days ago. >I do have results: > >Two identical P233 MMX machines both 64 meg ram. Hash as 24. >All games played from the John Nunn test positions available form Chessbase. > >I used the Faber\Pilz settings on Chessmaster since I have tried all other >settings found on the net, and tried modified home settings and found that >Faber\Pilz settings beat everything. > >Chessmaster 5500 Faber\Pilz v Chessmaster 6000 Faber\Pilz. >Time 2 hrs per game. >CM 5500 17 V 23 CM 6000 > >Time 1 hr per game. >CM 5500 16 V 24 CM 6000 > >Time 30 secs move >CM 5500 18 V 22 CM 6000 > >Time 15 secs move >CM 5500 15 V 25 CM 6000 > >It is my opinion that CM 6000 using Faber\Pilz settings is the strongest >available commercial chess program. I also own and have played the CM 6000 >against Fritz 5 and Rebel 10, and find that the CM 6000 will win my similar >margins as those quoted against the CM 5500. > >I do however look forward to Fritz 5.32 and am eager to try it against CM 6000 >Faber\Pilz. > >Dan Kiski. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Dan, I'm new to this site (2 months) so forgive me if I haven't discovered everything that went before me. First of all the hash table setting of 26 enables 64 meg of hash tables. I have test this setting and found it speeds up Chessmaster 5500 by a factor of anywhere from 5% to 300%(Middle game to endgame). I assumed the CM6K is similar. So my question is why not? I have a question for you. What did you prove by playing the CM5500F/P vs the CM6K F/P ? I assume the CM6K is stronger than the CM5500 anyway so your results would be expected even without the F/P settings. In other words you may have decreased/increased the strength of both programs with the settings but you can't prove which way. As I said I have not seen any "Proof" that those settings are better than the programmers original settings. I'm not saying it's not possible but I prefer to deal with a known quantity(The original software). Also, I'm slowly starting to admit that CM6K is stronger than Junior5 but I haven't played enough games to prove that and I doubt that I will. I'm very sure CM6K is in the same league with J5/F5 but I'm playing the games for the "fun of it" and that's all. I'm sharing the games with people on this site because I believe others will enjoy seeing what I'm seeing. I think programs that this evenly matched would take many hundreds of games to sort out who is the strongest. I'm more interested in the styles of play and I love it when a program announces "Mate in 12". They are playing way over my head but I can still enjoy the games. I hope others will too. I know most people don't have the time to do this and that's why I'm doing it. Jim Walker
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.