Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: the difference between alberts and my settings

Author: Albert Silver

Date: 07:26:31 10/28/04

Go up one level in this thread


On October 28, 2004 at 10:04:40, Thorsten Czub wrote:

>On October 28, 2004 at 09:40:50, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>In this version I added the [MISC_39] switch and I reduced the [Pawn Formation]
>>from 109 to 108. That's *it*. Everything else was left as is. It reeks of black
>>magic if you ask me, but I think it just struck a balance. Anyhow, the results
>>are exactly those I've reported, and I'd be happy to share the full games with
>>anyone requesting.
>
>
>btw: what was misc_39 ? i don't have it on my list of switches...
>or i have forgotten the meaning.

Check your e-mail from Ed. It's another move-ordering switch that combines well
with [MISC_03] according to him. My first tests showed problems, not just in the
finding of key moves, but in the main lines it was displaying while analyzing (I
 always look closely at this), so I was unconvinced. I then decided it must be
an issue of balance and decided to make small adjustments here and there to see
if I could find it. The 109 to 108 suddenly made a difference, so I decided to
start a match with it.

>i doubt that the 109 to 108 should give significant differences...

Actually, I do believe it, but never expected quite such a big one.

Take the Pawn Pressure switches. I've tested very high and very low with it, and
lots in between. At more than 170 for the middlegame, the engine goes manic
about hitting pawn weaknesses. So much that it neglects other important things.
At 160 or less, it doesn't of course, but I find that it doesn't do enough. My
completely subjective opinion is that the ideal value for it is 165. However,
not for the endgame. Here I found that even values of 150 had a detrimental
effect on its play. So I've set it at 140. I mostly found this when trying to
make a special endgame setting. I can't prove anything, it is just based on my
observation.

>but of course it could be voodoo :-))

That's almost more probable... :-)

                      Albert



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.