Author: Jeff Lischer
Date: 15:10:24 06/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2000 at 12:44:21, blass uri wrote: >>Here's what I get with an overnight analysis using Rebel Century 1.2 >>(Anti-GM=Strong, PC: PIII 600, 60 MB hash table): > >I remember that Ed claims that it is not a good idea to use anti-GM=strong with >analysis. > >I found that Rebel can avoid c3 also without anti-GM. > >Uri I haven't heard that recommendation from Ed. I remember that he has said Anti-GM=Smart is not good for analysis. This is because the Smart setting is a function of the game history (i.e. previous moves) and will give erratic results with analysis. I thought Anti-GM=Off versus Strong was more a matter of personal taste. Early on, I do recall him saying he personally didn't like Rebel's playing style as much with Anti-GM turned on, but I don't know what he thinks about it these days. What I've found in comparing the analysis results of the two, is that when they are different, sometimes go to the same move if given more plies to think. When you found that Rebel avoided c3, at what ply did it finally leave c3 for good?
This page took 0.01 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.