Author: James T. Walker
Date: 14:04:28 12/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 1998 at 10:34:03, blass uri wrote: >1)Material10 4.5 >2)Material20 3.5 >3-4)Material-20 3 >3-4)material30 3 >5-6)Material-30 2.5 >5-6)chessmaster 2.5 >7)Material-10 2 > >The games were played on my pentium200MMX > >All the personalities are the same as chessmaster when I changed only the value >of material/position > >The value is 10 for material10 and similiar for other personalities > >If the value is negative then the program is more materialistic > > >The results are not significant statistically > >Uri >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Uri, I know what you are trying to do and it sounds logical but in my opinion it's a little too simplistic. I believe the settings of the individual parameters cannot be measured in this way. I think they must work in harmony ot achieve the best results. This is why I believe the original settings by the programmer are the best. He has after all spent many years tuning this program to perfection. That is not to say it is perfect and cannot be improved upon. It's just that to improve these settings you will have to test each change with hundreds of games with many different opponents to have real proof of improvement mainly because any improvement is bound to be small. Small differences in strength cannot be determined with a few games as you well know. Of course this is only my opinion, but consider the logic. Best Regards, Jim Walker
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.