Author: Mark Young
Date: 06:57:22 12/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1998 at 09:08:48, Dan Kiski wrote: >On December 10, 1998 at 07:55:31, Mark Young wrote: > >>On December 10, 1998 at 07:51:35, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 1998 at 07:27:14, Micheal Cummings wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Test 4 and CM6555 are pretty much the same arn't they apart from the queen value >>>>for Test 4 being 9.6 and the Cm6555 being 10. >>> >>>A\D is +4 not -4, Q is 9.6 not 10, R is 5 not 5.5. >> >>*Correction A\D is 0 not -4.* >> >>> >>>Small changes like this can be good or very bad. The only difference in CM6555 >>>and test 6 is .1 change in the bishop and night settings over CM6555. Either >>>test 6 had bad luck or very small changes *can* push you over the edge. I just >>>go slow and try to fine tune things here and there and then see what happends. > >I think that although the difference between CM6555 and test 6 is just .1 that >the main difference in the results is lack of games played, not that it pushes >over the edge. "Either test 6 had bad luck or very small changes *can* push you over the edge." Here is what I said in full. I did not discount what you are saying. So there is no need to tell me this. And more then 14 games have been played and posted with most of those settings. And more will be played by me and others. I will say again. I could only get 14 games out of this test, That is the limit of CM in one match with 8 players and get an even number of games with white and black. But simply that with the variations in opening available and such >a small sample any result can be discounted. This is why for me the nunn >positions are good because for sure both sides get an equal chance with the same >set-up position after move 10. > >Dan Kiski
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.