Author: Tina Long
Date: 20:59:55 04/06/01
Hi guys, I've done all this before with Rebel Century, I worked for weeks, never formed a conclusion, so I went to Japan for some months to forget it all. What I say below about CM8k can also be roughly translated to Rebel Century. Century has the added benefits (complications) of ONite search syle & the like. Following brief discussion of CM8k personalities in http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?161873 I tried a little research. I'm interested in CM8k playing at 1 hour and 12 hours per move (from the old Komputer Korner days) on a P3 1ghz computer. I was using my Personality "CM128" default CM8k with 128m hash.(selectivity = 6) I then tried the same with selectivity = 12 I then tried the same with selectivity = 2 At 12: Depths reached were 1/11, 2/14 & the like. At 2: Depths reached were 7/9 10/12 & the like. 2: for the same positions, looked MUCH deeper at "brute force" and only SLIGHTLY shallower at selective depth than 12:. While most moves chosen were the same, when they differed I considered the 2: were more sound (but then I'm just a dumb human) and more likely to agree with Hiarcs732 & Tigger14. What is the opinion of CCC people on the strength of the decisions made, in very long time period games or analysis: Is it better to have low selectivity and have a MUCH larger safer brute force search? Is it better to have high selectivity to have a SLIGHTLY deeper selective depth search? What's the benefit of that 1 or 2 extra ply compared to the risk of not checking the full width beyond 1 or 2 plys? I feel the results will differ depending on the particular positions, & I'd be inclined to have high selectivity in the Early & Middle Game & lower selectivity in the Endgame. BUT I can quite easily see why just the opposite might be best. Your Opinions will be appreciated, See Ya Tina Long
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.