Author: Albert Silver
Date: 09:42:56 08/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
>>Thanks again, and interesting. You mentioned in the descriptions the various
>>advantages of higher settings for some of the parameters, notably the Chess
>>Knowledge. Aside from the King Safety, I take it that you now believe the
>>default values are still best.
>
>Yes.
>
>Although Thorsten will strongly protest :)
>
>
>
>>A number of the settings aren't clear to me all the same. At least the
>>differences between them. There are a number of parameters linked to attacking,
>>such as Attack, King Safety, and Attractiveness. The difference between them is
>>very unclear to me.
>
>[Attacking = xxx] is meant to be the successor of [Anti-GM = xxx] but since I
>don't compete any longer against GM's I have no idea how it would perform. The
>function searches for complexity on the board.
>
>[Attractiveness = 125] simply is a multiplier of all positional components of a
>position. A value of 125 will multiply the evaluation with 1.25
This merely multiplies the values of the components (presumably only those that
apply)? Sounds like an odd idea. Basically it would only serve to exacerbate the
relative importance of the elements, no? I mean for example:
Attractiveness = 100:
Passed pawn = 0.30
Doubled pawns = 0.20
knight on outpost on f5 = 0.16
and if the attractiveness is increased to 150:
Passed pawn = 0.45
doubled pawns = 0.30
Knight on outpost = 0.24
In other words it will favor pushing the passed pawn as it increases in value
more than others. Much more than it would normally. Does this really help at
all? If the values are off then they should be readjusted, but here it seems it
will distort the overall picture, serving to solve some positions quicker at the
cost of messing up more of the others.
Albert
>
>
>>Another point is the selectivity of the search. I see Selective Search = 100,
>>and below a group of settings called Adjusted Selectivity (turned off, but
>>still). There's also the setting of Search Technique. I noticed in the 10.5
>>description a Deep, Deepest, etc. In PD it is Null Move. I take it that they
>>turned out to be less efficient?
>
>It's best to ignore these options, if there is an improvement after all it is
>very small. Just keep the default settings.
>
>
>
>> Albert
>>
>>P.S. In the position with 1.e5!, wasn't it Spassky who played that move, and not
>>Capablanca?
>
>
>No idea.
>
>Ed
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.