Author: Chessfun
Date: 05:29:59 01/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2000 at 07:28:11, Michael Cummings wrote: >On January 08, 2000 at 05:57:55, Chessfun wrote: > > >>I neither work for Mindscape or Michael Cummings. I do not test this for >>Mindscape or Michael Cummings I test it for my own interests and others >>if they are interested in seeing the games. > >Since this is the case for your testing, no point in talking about it any >further. I find using the CM6666 personality of little use in obtaining any >results which would lead me to think that it is a good setting or not. But that >is my point of view > >>Before I joined CCC there was no CM6K only CM5500. > >If this is the case, you were either using another name or were not looking or >posting anything in this forum, or were not interested in anything regarding >chessmaster. There was months of Chessmaster post regarding settings and other >things, to the point which other members were getting fed up. I was a major >poster at that time, and do not remember you name even here at that time. > Correct another name. >>I have been running CM personality tests for just over a year now and in >>that time have determined to my own satisfaction that the CM6666 settings are >>better than the default at 40/2hr time controls. I do not h2ave the thousands of >>games you do, as I see sometimes you also play very fast time controls. > >When did you see me playing faster time controls, I have not posted anything on >CM6K or a chessmaster games for a very long time, (nearly over a year now) > Not posted games using faster time controls but made statements on the subject of faster time controls. I think it is far short of a year since you posted a CM game, but I accept your statement. >I have had CM6K since towards the end of 1998, like I said, you either changed >your name or never posted, I know most names I see post on here. > I got my CM6K in Nov 88. >>I usually play is 30 min side and then only to determine if a personality is >>worth taking to the next step (40/2). > >This testing method has certain flaws in my view. > And you are entitled to it. >>THE CM TEAM* tested at 5/3 against the default, which is of little to no value. > >Which adds to my point about testing, and the way to do it. Since you clearly >state you are doing it for your own interests, then that is fine, as for the >interest of the results obtained in my view, then there is not much interest for >me, but that again means very little. > I am doing it not for the benefit of Mindscape. >>Only reason I even bothered with this was John asked the question, personally I >>am certain these settings will be of little value and I do not try every set of >>settings I see. John made no statement about testing it >>only against the default. > >>Your test itself was conducted without the use of the Josh book and though you >>can state they used the same opening this in itself means little unless you are >>going to play a few hundred games, otherwise we would all only be using Nunn or >>some similar test in the openings. One of the features of the Josh personality >>was it's opening book as well as the other changes. > >This is a very important part of the testing. This gives the best indication of >the settings for the personality. After the opening which is usually taken from >the book anyway, this is where the testing of the engine with its settings comes >into its own. > I do not in general disgree with that, but only after a considerable amount of games has been played. >CM6K opening books have never been great, and are of little importance when >testing how strong a personlity is, yes games can be won and lost in its >opening. But in testing CM settings, the opening book is of little importance >when finding what is the best. > I have read different, but I do not generally disagree with that. >Simply put, using the Chessmaster personality and the Josh settings with best >same opening book for both, will give better results as to which settings are >the stronger. > Again only after playing a considerable amount of games. > >> >>And it is can be said that CM6666 might not perform well at longer time >>controls however I have not read much of that, and if that were said what >>difference if that is not how my computer scores it. > >Its has been said, and my tests have gone to strengthen that statement. > I have not read it written by anyone other than yourself. >> >>I have seen you make claims the last few days about Chess Tiger's strength >>versus the CM6K on games played at http://www.konts.lv/usr/Didzis/index.html >>games that were played at (16Mb hash when possible, 60min/game) this seems >>a similar claim to the one on the CM6666 not performing as well as the CM6K. >>What games or claims is it you refer to exactly?. Quote form Shep's >>"CM 6666 Shep 40/120 on 550 MHz and above; extraordinarily strong". >>Thanks. > >Shep can quote what he likes, does not mean that it is correct or right. Agreed, but my point was there are other opinions on it's strength and I offered one wheras at that point you had offered none. > I have >2 CM settings which are currently ahead of all other settings that have been >floating around. But since you must have been here in CCC when I and the rest >posted settings of various personalities and how they ranked playing each other, >you can see clearly that this means very little. And that my 2 settings could be >strong or weak. > I know one of them is SS10, whereas in my own testing it is not performing. >I take program strength with CM as using 16meg hash tables (Johann said to use >that, Agreed, mine is also set that way. with selective search on 10) Playing games at 40/2hr time controls. If >CM6K or any other chessmaster program is going to play another program, then two >computers have to be used, CM is a CPU hog, and changing anything else like deep >thinking affect this program in my view. This is a view that is shared by some and disputed by others. > >But since you have now stated that you are doing this for fun, which I thought >you were doing some serious testing to add to tests done over time to give an >indication as to what is better or weaker, then this whole discussion is pretty >pointless. > Please define serious or fun, not sure I said fun? but anyway sure I accept the term fun it is fun, isn't your testing fun. You are not paid, do not work for a commercial company. Therefore I think I can claim I am as serious as you yourself are, and that is a matter of personal opinion. >you claim CM6666 in your tests are stronger than the default, then that is fine. >I have done my tests using a PII 450 with 256meg ram, 16meg hash tables, and >also on my current PIII 550 with 256 ram and 16meg hash tables (which is enough >power to give some good testing) to tell me otherwise. > Then we differ in our experience. >IMHO, your tests are just as you said, for interest. It is not the way I would >test. You are testing an unknown setting with another unknown settinbg, at least >the default is the standard we are given and is a known setting and benchmark. Now you use the word interest, which I believe is what I said. Then why not throw out your Rebel or any other program that currently has no testing level benchmarks other than games posted, the same as CM6666. > >Well anyway, this josh setting has already bored me, I claim it as another >hopefull to bite the dust. > I agree. >I have just finished testing it over 20 games at 5mins a game against other >settings, and it is not ahead of the default. So this setting bites the dust. Hmmm that is not a way I would test: To quote you from above. "IMHO, your tests are just as you said, for interest. It is not the way I would test." No, those 5 min games they are serious testing huh, or did you have some fun. 5 minute games are not how I would test either. Thanks.
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.