Author: Alvaro Rodriguez
Date: 09:28:26 04/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2000 at 10:54:43, blass uri wrote: >On April 16, 2000 at 08:31:44, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: > >>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 > >No >I mean they will change their evaluation function to a better evaluation >function. > >I saw many cases when the evaluation function of programs is wrong in queen >endgames. > >programs often do not understand that some KQP vs KQPP endgames are clear >advantage for the KQP side because only this side have chances to promote the >passed pawn to queen when the chances of the side with the material advantage is >only to draw by perpetual check. > >The same is if the side with the dangerous pawn is 2 pawns down because counting >pawns is not important. > >Uri Ok, I understand. I thought you meant that the programs will change their evaluations _because_ this new chessmaster setting is playing well.. 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.