Author: Alex Shalamanov
Date: 06:09:15 01/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2006 at 03:54:08, Graham Banks wrote: >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. Thanx, Graham. You've been very helpful. I've tried CZUB, CEGT and the default one. Yeah, true. CEGT tends to be a bit stronger for long analysis. Alex
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.