Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 05:04:36 06/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 2003 at 07:29:14, Mike S. wrote: >On June 09, 2003 at 06:34:16, Sune Fischer wrote: [..] >IMO it's not about what an *engine* deserves, but what the reader of such a list >deserves, to be informed about. It wouldn't make much sense IMO to display the >performance of an engine, that virtually nobody uses set up that way. Who in the >computer chess community runs King's default personality? That has Sel. 9 now >(CM8K was 6 only), but also 4 MB (!) hash only IIRC, for example... If it is expected of the user to browse the internet, to read rating lists of different settings, to ask him to trust testers on the internet rather than the author of the program, to basicly become an expert on CM settings before he can fully enjoy the program at full strength, then I think it isn't a very good product. There are several ways to solve this problem, one way is that the program investigates these things the first time it is run or on installation, writes a I'm-on-this-hardware log and modifies settings accordingly. Second solution is to make a setting: anti-human, anti-computer "personality", in case the GUI doesn't inform the engine who's it's opponents are. I think Crafty keeps a killer profile for some of the known ICC players, to prevent blocked pawn positions and such. It can be done, but however it is done you shouldn't expect the user wants to be troubled with it. >I'd even recommend, in addition to selectivity 12, to adjust the king safety to >150/150, as a good compromise between settings improvement and "easy >documentation" of the setting. (I think the effect of the usual small changes of >the other values will be very small compared to these, although probably visible >in terms of a few Elos, when very many games are played.) > >I appreciate when a list has playing conditions most similar to the average >practise. Then, it can provide the best information value. > >>(...) >>Well that means if one engine is improved by the users, then all the other >>engines should have the same chance, or the conditions are simply not equal. > >I'm sure, if alternative settings of other engine become widely known and >generally accepted as being better (before the test is run), they will be used. >It seems to me this has been done already with Tiger 15, which was tested with >MoreGambit=-1. AFAIK this isn't the default in the CB. GUI, but considered to be >better by the Tiger 15 experts (?). Yes. If I was the author I would take the optimal settings and make them default in a hurry, and give credit where due. >Regards, >M.Scheidl -S.
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.