Author: Jason Kent
Date: 04:53:09 03/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2005 at 02:47:08, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >On March 17, 2005 at 02:29:33, Ray Banks wrote: > >>On March 17, 2005 at 02:13:50, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>> >>> For me it's absolutely of no interest to know/see which >>> is the strongest CM9-setting when playing each other. The >>> only thing and question is how well a CM9-setting is doing >>> vs non CM9-engines. And in this respect I do not think that >>> Graham's test will be able to prove anything. The winner of >>> this tournament will most probably not be the best setting >>> vs non CM9-engines. >>> Kurt >> >>There will certainly be a few inconsistencies. For example, Assassin has proved >>very strong in my testing of CM personalities vs non-CM9 engines. Yet, Assassin >>is near the bottom of the chart so far in Graham's showdown > > > Hi Ray > CM9_Assassin is a very good example to demonstrate that > it does (almost) never make sense to make such tests. > On the other hand: I have never heard about good results > of CM9_Minotaur and/or CM9_Mapi at longer time controls > over 300-500 games vs non CM9-engines but both these > settings are top on Graham's list. I repeat my experience > with CM8k: my "best" setting beating all other CM8-settings > had a very poor performance vs non CM8-engines ... and since > that time I stopped such tests for ever. > Kurt I agree with Kurt on this one. It doesn't really mean much to say that your setting is the best against other CM settings. Of course, the tournament is still interesting to watch.
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.