Author: Graham Banks
Date: 00:54:08 01/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2006 at 03:31:13, Alex Shalamanov wrote: >On January 13, 2006 at 03:22:26, Graham Banks wrote: > >>On January 13, 2006 at 02:44:33, Alex Shalamanov wrote: >> >>>On January 12, 2006 at 15:13:22, Graham Banks wrote: >>> >>>>Just clarifying! :-) >>> >>>Uh, right. :-) I just spelled his name erroneously. And what's the Czub's >>>setting like? Just 'Aggressive+Hyper Modern' or are there any additional >>>changes? >>> >>>Alex >> >> >>I believe that threat depth=5 and futility on are also used in addition to >>aggressive and hypermodern. >>I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong. >> >>Graham. > >Thanx. I've been trying H10 with the default setting. It's not that bad even >with the default settings but IMHO it tends to be a little worse than Shredder9 >'Columbus' egg S' in long analysis. Is CZUB setting better for blitz or long >games? As far as I remember, Mark Uniacke used to believe that the default >settying is the strongest for long games and analysis. > >Alex It depends who you believe as to the relative merits of the default and Czub settings. According to CEGT ratings, hypermodern style (without all the other changes as in the Czub setting) performs slightly more strongly than default. Most of the results posted here with the Czub settings seem to be at blitz or 30 mins per game levels and results seem to vary. Graham.
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.