Author: Michael Cummings
Date: 06:09:21 01/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2000 at 08:29:59, Chessfun wrote: >On January 08, 2000 at 07:28:11, Michael Cummings wrote: > >>On January 08, 2000 at 05:57:55, Chessfun wrote: >> >Correct another name. What Name was that ? >I got my CM6K in Nov 88. Nov 88, was CM6K even in twinkle in daddy's eyes 12 years ago ? >I am doing it not for the benefit of Mindscape. No one here tests for the benefit of mindscape, well I do not at least >I have not read it written by anyone other than yourself. I make these statements after careful considerations and testing. >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. On the net, I do not know any, but that is one, can you offer at least two more to back up your statements, other than opinions or sites which give an indication, but usually with very few samples of games. >I know one of them is SS10, whereas in my own testing it is not performing. As CM6666 is not testing to well with me >This is a view that is shared by some and disputed by others. But to take away the doubt, use two computers >Please define serious or fun, not sure I said fun? Doing it for fun (doing it out of interest) Usually when you do it for interest, it is out of your enjoyment or fun to see what will happen. >Then we differ in our experience. I have tests showing one way, only to repeat them to show something else. So I differ in my own experiences as well. Which is a different story. >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. Chessmaster is different, Chessmaster has the Chessmaster personality which the programmer said is the strongest setting. So from that we can play around with the settings to see if there is something better than the default which is claimed to be the best settings. Its fine you think that CM6666 is stronger and you now use that to test other settings, but I disagree with using that as the benchmark for the strongest setting. If you do that, then why not just pick any setting and say it is the benchmark. I suppose the question is, have you tested it enough to say for sure that it is stronger. Otherwise using iut against any other setting would always be in the back of my mind, is this new setting that is beating CM6666 really better than the standard. Even after 100+ games played with that setting at various time controls I cannot say for sure, when the next 100 usually give different results. >>Well anyway, this josh setting has already bored me, I claim it as another >>hopefull to bite the dust. >> >I agree. I suppouse its only cause John is a pretty good guy that I also even bothered to test these settings. More likely it was some programmer who should have been getting the bugs out of CM7K waisting time playig around with settings, and thought "wow, I have played so many games and these results look pretty good" But how many double games were there, if that same number of games were played again would the results be different ??? They admitt to lack of testing. But in my opinion the settings are of little use. >>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. Well after coming to the conclusion that the settings were of no use, I did have some fun, mainly to test my settings some more, all left to the CM program. I set up a tournament for FUN. Apart from having a total or 14 double games, the results had one of my settings at the top, followed my CM default, then CM default SS=10, with CM Josh last. Either way, I can answer John's question so he can go back to the development team, these settings in my view are no better than many others out there. I think the main reason is the draw setting, it is not agressive enough to want to win, it wants to think about drawing. Thus it deserves to fail.
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.