Author: Chessfun
Date: 23:00:19 01/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2000 at 01:19:49, Michael Cummings wrote: >On January 08, 2000 at 22:55:39, Chessfun wrote: > >>On January 08, 2000 at 22:20:18, Michael Cummings wrote: >> >>>On January 08, 2000 at 11:13:09, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>I was going to reply to some of your comments, but I will say two things. First >>>I fabricate nothing, I never said I use two computers for testing Chessmaster >>>personalites which number over 1000 games. That is a false statement by you. >>> >>You said you had played over 1000 games. > >Correct > >>You said the only way to test CM was with two computers. > >Correct, but I have never stated I tested all of them, that assumption is utter >crap, and I challenge you to produce that I have said anywhere that I tested all >these games using two computers, I have never even considered saying or even >trying that > >>Therefore it is just a natural conclusion. > >Wrong Conclusion > >>If the statement is false it is less false than you saying I said >>I test for fun. > >Testing for interest, enjoyment, is the same as fun. > That statement is utter crap !!. If someone uses one word you just cannot substitute another than you see as equal. >> >>>My point being whenever you post a game with CM6666, you are representing the >>>chessmaster program, it is not what we were told are the best settings, and you >>>are portraying the program strength in a false light, this means very little >>>when you test the program against other personalities, but it does mean allot if >>>you do this against other programs and post your results. >> >>Disagree. First when those games are posted the settings are clearly deliniated >>for everyone to see. It is done at CCC as well as at countless websites. > >Yes but I have read from people wanting to know about CM6666 as they wanted the >settings stronger than the default. Some people are stupid you know. > >>> >>>If someone wants to test chessmaster and give results for these matches, then >>>they use the setting which Johann the programmer recommends. >>> >>There is no basis for that statement. The settings are configurable for the >>very reason that they want you to play with the settings. John himself stated >>as much by saying they had tested other settings. This is also idential to >>the current Rebel Century engine contest. > >As long as you state your setting clearly, then there is less of a problem, not >all do. > >> >> >>>Why do I say this >>> >>>There are already to many people who read a few posts regarding CM6666 and >>>other settings now thinking that this is the best setting you can use. >>> >>And your point is what? and who are all these other people? and how do you >>know what they think? > >Because they state their thoughts in posts and emails. > >I have only seen a minimal amount of posts recently on >>the subject. Far less in-fact than when you yourself contributed to them. >>Which you also did even in your test by stating the results of your own pet >>version SS10, > >No pet version, CM6K with 16meg hash tables, and SS=10, these settings are what >Johann said to use to obtain its best play. When I play with other programs >against CM6K, I do not use pet settings. You maybe correct, but they would be >the pet settings of Johann, and since he wrote the engine I am sure if he said >that they would give the best results, then I would not argue with him > And neither would I, isn't it odd though that they would send the engine out with SS6 then declare SS10 the best. Please point me to where Johann said this. > >which if you state others should not be posting results of non >>default personalities, what about considering yourself first and setting us all >>an example. > >I am using a setting which the programmer said to use, not one that Joe Blow >created and goes on to say is the best. > Again please point to where the programmer said to use this SS10 setting. > >> >>>Test what you like if you want to do it for interest, but when you play and post >>>regarding chessmaster I think people should do it with the default, so that no >>>one can use these results as to the strength of CM, when in fact CM could be >>>playing under par with the CM6666 settings >> >>Then as stated above you yourself should not have done it today by posting about >>the SS10, especially if the ultimate result is that the above paragraph >>is your true feelings on the subject. >>Thanks. > >Your conclusions are wrong, until I see evidence that CM6666 is better than the >default, you can go and cook up all the settings you like. But I doubt their >will be enough games played to show this. > Your opinion is that my conclusions are wrong. This goes back to the very first couple of posts where you stated the same thing and I asked for where this information came from. And the result was my conclusions are wrong IYHO. >Maybe you can get Shep and Didzis to play the very few games they have with this >setting again, and see if the results are the same or different. > I have no interest in getting them to play the settings, I am already doing it myself and in all liklihood on a much larger scale. >As far as I know Shep said that this setting might be strong against other >programs, but not so strong against other CM personalities. > I haven't seen him post that or heard him say it. Even were he to say it, as you yourself already pointed out when I posted his quote, it is only his opinion, same goes for anything in the reverse. >You can play CM6666 all you like, that is up to you. But for me if I used that >setting and the program lost, I would still always have in my mind that I might >be playing another program with a weak setting. > >Well anyway this is a dead issue now, apart from you and me, which we will never >agree on much here, no one else is interested, and this will soon turn into a >verbal bashing match full of insults Like using the words hmmm utter crap which you posted in the first paragraph above. I agree. 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.