Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: CM 6666 v CM 8888 (jorge)

Author: Alvaro Rodriguez

Date: 05:31:44 04/16/00

Go up one level in this thread


On April 16, 2000 at 08:24:08, blass uri wrote:

>On April 16, 2000 at 07:08:05, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote:
>
>>On April 16, 2000 at 03:25:01, blass uri wrote:
>>
>>>On April 16, 2000 at 02:11:59, Chessfun wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Maybe settings should be called CM6K Jorge less confusion at
>>>>a much later date with some CM8K settings.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway I read the post and stopped the current 100 game match
>>>>I had running at 2hrs/40 moves 1 hr rest between CM6000 and CM6666.
>>>>
>>>>I have thus far played 10 games 1 hr/side game.
>>>>Score CM6666 W3 L5 D3  CM8888 W5 L3 D3 looks like CM8888 will also
>>>>win game 11. Just did haha.
>>>>
>>>>For me I have no interest in what is stronger at 15 mins I am more
>>>>interested in longer games. Besides which for it to prove to be stronger
>>>>than CM 6666 would require a lot more games. For it to prove to be stronger
>>>>against other engines is another matter completely, beating CM 6666 don't
>>>>mean it will do better against Fritz and the like. Though I did read it had
>>>>scored well again the number of games still leaves a large margin of error.
>>>
>>>I think that the different values for qhite and black queen is illogical.
>>>It may help against other programs because they do not understand that counting
>>>pawns is not important in queens endgames with passed pawns but I do not expect
>>>it to help against chessmaster personalities.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>I think that the important thing here is to performe well against other
>>programs, not against cm personalities..IMHO
>
>I think that something that does not work well against other personalities may
>not work well against other programs in the future.
>
>>I agree that the queen value seems a little bit illogical, but what if it works?
>>We just have to wait and see..
>>
>>Alvaro
>
>I explained that the reason that it works may be the fact that other programs do
>not understand that counting pawns is not important in queen endgames with
>passed pawns.
>
>I believe that when programmers will improve their programs it will stop to be a
>good idea.
>
>Uri

When you say that "when programmers will improve their programs", what _exactly_
will they improve mattering this setting? I mean, will they tune the program
against this setting?

Alvaro



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.