Author: Albert Silver
Date: 13:23:05 06/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2000 at 13:44:07, Chessfun wrote:
>On June 07, 2000 at 05:33:40, Michael Cummings wrote:
>
>>On June 06, 2000 at 20:49:48, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>>
>>>Michael you probably have done enough CM testing at 40/2 but you have never
>>>tested CM=10 vs CMQueen+ at any time control.
>>>
>>>Pichard
>>
>>My answer to that is this. I could take your CM Queen setting and maybe change
>>one parameter by a point. This would make, depending on what I changed very
>>little difference to your personalitiy strength, and mine would be pretty much
>>identical.
>>
>>So no matter what setting you say is the best, there will always be more
>>settings to test.
>>
>>I also have little doubt that you have tested all of the other personalities
>>that have been floating around since the release of this program, and even going
>>back to CM5000, in which some setting were transfered from and altered.
>>
>>I have had numerous settings better than the default. And also had good result
>>against the SS=10, even beaten it on numerous occasions. But in the long run
>>after much testing I settled on CMSS=10 settings.
>>
>>I had a CM6Cummings personality which in my limited testing beat all the other
>>settings floating around at the time. But in the end gave up on it, I had spent
>>long enough testing.
>>
>>One setting might beat all other CM settings, but it may loose against another
>>chess program, where as the setting that lost in the CM tournaments, can usually
>>beat another chess program.
>>
>>That said test what you like, give your result, and hopefully at the end you
>>will feel as though you achieved something.
>>
>>Unless CM8K makes up for the CM7K disgrace, then no matter what settings you
>>use, chessmaster will be dead in the serious chess community and no one will
>>care.
>>
>>CM6K had a buzz around it. CM7K fizzed out very fast.
>
>
>Hi Michael,
> Can you post or send me your CM6Cummings settings?.
>
>For the rest of your post I agree testing settings with small incremental
>changes is laborious.
>
>CM8K must must must have an autoplayer for it to be worth anything.
>
>Thanks.
I couldn't agree more and there is absolutely no reason for them to not include
autoplayer support. I know that John Merlino, who posts here, is in on the
development/testing of it, but I'm not sure how much say he has in it. Let's
keep our fingers crossed.
Albert Silver
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.