Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 22:57:50 03/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 18, 2004 at 19:50:28, Mike S. wrote:
>Considering the permanent topic Chessmaster/The King settings, questions which
>are best under which conditions, which ones should be tested, etc. I'd like to
>hereby propose an easy way to make the situation much easier. Actually it's not
>so easy, as a lot of testing will be required, but it can be expected that
>manufacturers do this anyway (or at least should do, or even are doing it
>currently anyway).
>
>1. As usual, include "save" defaults for the typical user, IOW for the casual
>player, chess learning kids etc., to provide reliability for mentor and analysis
>purposes (in the sense of what Johan has explained recently), even on older an
>slower computers. I guess that would mean a selectivity of less than 12 and not
>too large transposition tables (but maybe at least 16 MB are possible by now as
>default, not 4 MB only?).
>
>In addition to that:
>
>2. Include specific "computerchess competition" settings designed by the CM
>makers as the official The King settings for engine matches. I think these could
>afford to have a selectivity of 12 (and maybe some other values changed
>according to test results respectively), and a default min. hash size of 32 MB
>or 64 MB. These should be mentioned in the docs as *manufacturer
>recommendations* for computerchess games.
>
>(Then I guess, SSDF must "officially" use Sel. 12 too if there's no other way to
>convince them.)
>
>There are so many settings included in Chessmaster anyway, why not include an
>engine competition setting? It would help to get an "allround" estimation of the
>strength of a new King version quicker and better, when everybody is testing
>with the same setting (which certainly won't be the case when only "typical
>user" defaults with slow selectivity are included which are not interesting for
>computerchess enthusiasts, when quickly proven to be not the best for engine
>matches).
>
>It could also remove most of the doubts against rating list rankings of The
>King, where it's currently not clear IMO how much of it's comp-comp potential is
>wasted now, when there are no default settings optimized for that competition.
>
>I see no downside of (2.), because a so called typical user who is not
>interested in computerchess competition, won't be harmed in any way. For these
>user's it would be just one more personality among all the many others which are
>included already. He'll probably will not even take notice.
>
>Regards,
>Mike Scheidl
Hi Mike
In principle: good idea but I have three objections. First of all we
must take into account that most people are using The King for
engine/engine matches outside the CM9-GUI to fight vs ChessBase
native and/or UCI-engines. And I am almost sure that two third of
the people doing this have implemented The King in the wrong way
in the Fritz-GUI, thus of course giving faulty results. And secondly,
the Chessmaster has so far never had a real strong and well adapted
own opening book: its also impossible to properly convert CM9-books
for use outside the CM-GUI. And finally it might be that even Johan de
Koning does not believe in real better settings by only changing some
parameters -:)
Kurt
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.