Author: John Merlino
Date: 20:08:46 02/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2003 at 21:15:08, Ralph Patriquin wrote: >On February 06, 2003 at 15:25:09, John Merlino wrote: > >>On February 06, 2003 at 14:23:24, Ralph Patriquin wrote: >> >>>On February 06, 2003 at 07:52:34, Harpo wrote: >>> >>>>After a 15 year hiatus, I'm planning to return to tournament play. In >>>>preparation, I've been playing 30/75 SD60 games against a handful of CM9K's >>>>personalities. I recall reading somewhere that these were guaged with USCF-rated >>>>players, but I would appreciate any opinions from OTB players as to how accurate >>>>these ratings "feel." I'm only curious about the personalities rated from >>>>2100-2500. >>>> >>>>Thanks in advance. >>> >>>Harpo, >>> >>>As John Merlino mentioned, some of the personalities exhibit rather bizarre >>>playing styles that cause them to make moves that in my opinion even a >>>relatively weak human player would not . I think you might find it will hurt >>>your play by training with them. >>> >>>I prefer to use the Chessmaster and other Grandmaster personalities but simply >>>weaken them by adjusting their Strength of Play setting. You might want to start >>>out at 50% and adjust from there in 10% increments up or down until you get a >>>challenging game. >>> >>>In this way you get a more balanced game with different playing styles, but >>>without the crazy play exhibited by some of the other personalities. You will >>>also play against better and varied opening books. The only downside is you >>>won't know the true rating of these opponents. Maybe John can explain how >>>Strength of Play works and a possible rating estimate from it, as I have no idea >>>as to its internal workings. >>> >>>Ralph >> >>Simply adjusting the Strength of Play setting is a good idea, but this setting >>is not exactly intuitive. The way Johan set it up this variable, it uses an >>inverse cubic function. So, going from 100 to 90 (or even 85) will result in >>VERY little reduction of strength. Once you get below 80, the strength starts to >>fall off more dramatically. So, looking at other personalities will help in this >>regard as well. >> >>jm > > >Inverse cubic, wow! Well I guess he had his reasons. Although it would have been >nice if it was linear, so that simple assumptions could be made, like: > >"If Chessmaster is 2600 at 100%, then it's approximately 1300 at 50%." > >John do you know anything about how the play is actually weakened? Does it use >second best move, third best move etc. (probably a little too simplistic) or >something else? > >Ralph I agree, from a user standpoint, that a linear scale would be much more intuitive. And, honestly, I have no idea how the Strength of Play setting works. Sorry.... jm
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.