Author: Harald Faber
Date: 03:31:01 12/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 1998 at 08:36:03, Dan Kiski wrote: >>Did you play 40/2h? If so then your investigations differ a lot from mine and >>facing so many games I will correct my statement. So, did you? With the >>original CM6k book? > >On the faber\pilz settings I use the mentor.obk. >Most of my investigation's (games) have been played against other settings than >the standard, since I found initially right off the bat that the faber\pilz >settings easily beat the standard settings, at all time controls. >As I stated I have also used the CM6000 faber\pilz mentor.obk v Fritz 5.0, v >Rebel 10, and CM 6000 faber\pilz v Fritz 5.0 and v Rebel 10 using the nunn >openings and found that neither Fritz or Rebel can win a match at 40/2h v >CM6000faber\pilz. OK, that was Nunn. It would be very senseful to play "normal" games. >I am not at all in love with the CM 6000 and find that Fritz is the most user >friendly program and is my favourite, however as stated I have not found >anything that competes with the CM 6000 faber/pilz settings, including I should >add the CM 5500 faber\pilz v cm 6000 faber\pilz where I also find the 6000 wins >by normally a margin of around 59-41 at most time controls. I don't know why you stuck to the Nunn positions. I haven't done yet, maybe someone here can start a tourney between the SSDF Top-10 (or some less) preferable on MMX200 using the Nunn positions. If he/we get (almost) the same or very very close ranking then I would accept the Nunn test. But I doubt that this will come true. Like it or not, 10 positions is not much...
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.