Author: Harvey Williamson
Date: 20:09:52 12/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 26, 2005 at 22:57:57, Heinz van Kempen wrote: >> >>If it's good enough for Mark, then I'm not arguing! :-) >>Better go with hypermodern and normal Heinz, >> >>Graham. > >Hi Graham, > >I think we will first collect some data with hypermodern and normal and see how >it works. First games here are promising. > >Studying our rating table I think it will also be useful to add a database with >best version only and only the games played between them. Hiarcs for example is >punished several time by having relatively poor results against Rybka versions >and also against Deep Shredder and Shredder. > >I will give such a ratinglist in a few days and we can compare if there are >distortions. Such a list should be additionally, because playing exactly the >same amount of games for all against all and no experiments with settings is >also nothing most CEGT testers would like. And there is still the chance to find >a very good setting and maybe give the authors some clues. > >Best Regards >Heinz Hi Graham & Heinz, I have only just spotted this thread at 0400 in the morning here on my way out to work. I was going to ask how would the rating list look if Rybka was taken out it seems Heinz is going to do something similar. As far as testing settings goes I agree with Enrico Hypermodern + normal should be tested as a second test option and then only as a third option should Hypermodern+Aggressive be tested. I hope this makes sense as its very early here and I am half asleap. Best Wishes Harvey
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.