Author: Chessfun
Date: 08:13:09 01/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2000 at 09:09:21, Michael Cummings wrote: >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 ? > My apology for my type. >>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 have no need to offer you any. It was an original point of yours to which I showed you an opposite viewpoint. You are the one who made the original point that and I quote; "And it is already been said that CM6666 might not perform well at longer time control." To that I offered you an example of the opposite viewpoint; "What games or claims is it you refer to exactly?. Quote from Shep's "CM 6666 Shep 40/120 on 550 MHz and above; extraordinarily strong". To which you replied; "Its has been said, and my tests have gone to strengthen that statement." So in fact what we have is your single viewpoint to which I showed you the one posted and added to that my own and asked for your others. >>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 > You are telling me that in these 1000 games you used two computers and played them all manually with CM6K, now we both know that this is a fabrication. Aside from which I have 4 computers!! not 1. but to play 1000 games manually is plain silly. >>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. The point was I didn't say it. You used the word fun when I had never written it. > >>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. > Which is what we do not only on CM6K but on other programs as well. >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. > Because I haven't tested this ANYSETTING personality. >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. > While that maybe true it's value need not be in just games with CM6K. We all know that while A beats B and B beats C don't equal A beats C. >>>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 agree, if it wasn't for John being from Mindscape I would have wanted to see games myself from someone elses posting prior to testing it. > >>>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. My point there was that you had said in reply to my; "I usually play 30 min side and then only to determine if a personality is worth taking to the next step (40/2)." I quote "This testing method has certain flaws in my view." Here again above you said; "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". These were 5 min games on one computer NOT TWO, which clearly is worse than 30. 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.