Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Rybka 2.3.2a engine parameters (locked)
- - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 19:07
Has anyone tried experimenting with different parameter settings when using the engine to analyze a set position? I've tried turning the contempt up to 50 or 60 when I have a position i'm trying to squeeze a win out of. I'm not sure how "Rate of play" effects things. Any bench testing done?

Thanks,

NPS
Parent - - By Vempele (Silver) [fi] Date 2007-07-16 19:18

> I've tried turning the contempt up to 50 or 60 when I have a position i'm trying to squeeze a win out of.


Optimism seems to be a better route at the moment. Remember that with high contempt, whichever side is to move will recklessly try to avoid repetitions and the 50-move rule. If neither of those is relevant to the position you're analyzing, contempt doesn't do much.

> I'm not sure how "Rate of play" effects things.


It doesn't; that's why it isn't called "Rate of analysis".

>Any bench testing done?


Just search for 'benchmark'.
Parent - - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 19:34
    > I'm not sure how "Rate of play" effects things.

It doesn't; that's why it isn't called "Rate of analysis"


Actually, it will indeed affect something, or else it wouldn't be an adjustable parameter. Honestly, I was hoping to get a response from someone a bit more knowledgeable, or at least someone with a basic grounding in common sense.
Parent - - By Felix Kling (Gold) [de] Date 2007-07-16 19:40 Edited 2007-07-16 19:51
Vempele is right. Rate of play is only important in matches, not in analysis, as it changes the time Rybka takes for her moves. Read more here: http://www.rybkachess.com/index.php?auswahl=Parameters+FAQ
Parent - - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 19:43
So then it indeed affects something, and both you and Vemele are wrong. What part of this simple concept is too difficult for you guys?

Anyway, thanks for the link.
Parent - - By Alkelele (***) Date 2007-07-16 19:51
You wrote:

> Has anyone tried experimenting with different parameter settings when using the engine to analyze a set position?


In this context, Vempele and F.Kling are perfectly right...
Parent - - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 19:55
No, Vempele and F.Kling are 100% wrong. Re-read my first post and get the context. Do you know how to read?
Parent - - By Alkelele (***) Date 2007-07-16 20:12

> Do you know how to read?


Sorry, no, I am just pretending. You got me there :-(
Parent - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 22:25
You're not doing a very good job of pretending. You've made it obvious that you're illiterate and have a very low IQ.
Parent - - By Felix Kling (Gold) [de] Date 2007-07-16 19:54
I'm the guy who wrote (at least some parts and collected the material) the "Parameter FAQ" (so please a bit more respect :) ).
Vempele's comment is related to analysis and as he says in analysis changing the "rate of play" parameter doesn't change anything.
Parent - - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 20:00 Edited 2007-07-16 20:03
Well you certainly need to improve your English reading comprehension skills. I'll give you respect when you indicate that you're worthy of it. Vempele's comment was 100% wrong, end of story. Re-read my first post, if indeed you know how to read in the first place. I simply asked: "I'm not sure how "Rate of play affects (effects) things". Anyone with an IQ over 90 and junior high level English reading skills should be able to understand. I'm not sure why you two can't.

Stop polluting this thread with your nonsense.
Parent - - By Felix Kling (Gold) [de] Date 2007-07-16 21:18
"Has anyone tried experimenting with different parameter settings when using the engine to analyze a set position?" Was your first sentence. "when using the engine to analyze a set position" is the important part.
Sorry, you get answers from experts here an you think that you have to be right and anyone else is wrong.
The fact that not only I understood your question differently to your interpretion would make me think about what I say :) .
Parent - - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 21:54 Edited 2007-07-16 22:58
You are one annoying little idiot! I can barely believe that someone can be this patently STUPID, but alas, here you are.
It makes no iota of a difference what my first sentence was. Re-read my post and you will see that my statement was: "I'm not sure how "Rate of play" effects things" I did NOT say: I'm not sure how "Rate of play" effects the analysis of a set position. so both YOU and your boyfriend "Vempele" are completely wrong. If you're too stupid to understand a simple post like that, it's clear you're no expert at anything, other than being an annoying little forum troll.

Now SHUT UP and stop polluting this thread with your nonsense!

[EDIT] That's enough. You will be banned from the forum for some time, I guess you know why. This forum is a place where we can discuss things and can have different oppinions, but offending other people without any reason isn't OK.

Felix
[/EDIT]
Parent - - By Alkelele (***) Date 2007-07-16 22:12
Hey, is it not "affects things" rather than "effects things" ? I may now be able to read, but this just makes me feel extra bad about having to correct a genius like you...
Parent - - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 22:24
You've just proven you're a complete imbecile kid. Only someone with a very low IQ like you would focus on petty spelling errors and typos and consider that to be a barometer of intelligence. I bet your mother wishes she had aborted you.
Parent - - By Alkelele (***) Date 2007-07-16 22:50
Actually, I am adult, I just never grew up :-(. What's up with all this talk about IQ anyway? Are you trying to convince us about the length of your e-penis? Why not just smack up a picture of your real penis... I assure you that we will be ready to give you all the recognition that an √úbermench like you deserves... This mundane talk about engine parameters was getting boring anyway. You must have better things to spend your divine talents on. I don't think you should waste any more time fooling around with idiots like us. Only the sky is the limit for someone like you!
Parent - - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 23:01
I don't know, nor do I care, what age you've achieved chronologically, you are certainly no adult mentally. That much is crystal clear. Your posts here have nothing to do with the topic whatsoever and are made with the sole intention of harassing.  You are what is referred to as an INTERNET TROLL  and should be BANNED from this forum. Why don't you go and find something shiny and metallic to play with?

There have already been some legitimate responses to my post. You should read them and perhaps one of these days you'll begin to understand what a legitimate forum post is.
Parent - By Alkelele (***) Date 2007-07-16 23:44
Pathetic counter. You proved to be a really weak troll. You have to show some personality. Some creativity. You have to take the initiative, but without overplaying your cards. I mean, getting banned in a mere couple of hours? Really miserable. Pulling the "you are all trolls" card so early? Clear sign of poor experience. You have to find the right rhythm. Suck people in. I do think you can pull it off, with your high IQ. You just need a bit of practice. Some guidance. So, better luck next time!

Btw, NPS, my mom once said something that really stuck with me. She said, 'Alkelele, you're a big disappointment', and God bless her soul, she was really on to something!
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2007-07-16 22:40
Actually, not only do you seem to be annoying and arrogant, you seem to either have quite a low intellectual ability or you don't know how to write correctly in the English language by stringing together ideas in paragraph format (though I suppose it's also possible that you're the proverbial internet troll who is just intentionally stirring up trouble to have some fun, and that you know perfectly well that Vempele and Felix were correct in the first place and that the relevant part, i.e. that rate of play affects play, not analysis, is obviously correct).  When your first sentence in the paragraph says that you're wondering about such and such regarding analysis, then then you say "how rate of play affects things", the ambiguity in the word "things" is settled by the fact that your first sentence made it clear that the paragraph was to discuss analysis.  Thus is understood as implied by proficient readers of the English language.  Of course, if you had wanted your "things" idea to imply something else, you should have started a new paragraph and then explained what you mean by "things".
Parent - - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 22:54
turboretard1122, I'm asking you this seriously.....were you dropped on your head about 50 times as a child. Have you been diagnosed with clinical retardation? There has to be some explanation. My IQ is probably DOUBLE what yours is. That's not an exaggeration.

As already stated, I simply asked: "I'm not sure how "Rate of play affects (effects) things" (The quotes in this case mean that's what was said VERBATIM....sorry, verbatim is another one of those "biggie" words you're going to have to look up). I did NOT say: I'm not sure how "Rate of play" effects the analysis of a set position. Anyone with an IQ over 90 and junior high level English reading skills should be able to understand. I'm not sure why you two can't.

You're obviously the troll here retard. I've already had a couple of responses by reasonable people who do indeed know how to read and understand English. My post was 100% on topic, whereas your post is 0% on topic and you are posting only to harass and annoy. Take your medication and find some other forum to be a complete nuisance in. Did I use any words too complex for your tiny brain to comprehend?
Parent - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2007-07-16 23:21
Haha, actually this is getting quite hilarious.  Of course, you didn't address my argument about why, grammatically speaking, what you said DOES apply to analysis the way it was written in your post.  I mention this because while I can tolerate stupidity, which is the result of a genetic or physical condition that cannot typically be helped, I generally have to say something when stupidity combines with arrogance, as it has in your post.  I won't enter into a major discussion on IQ other than saying that I know, with 100% certainty, that yours definitely is not double mine, or even 1.5 times mine, as there aren't any in the world that are 1.5 times that number :-)  However, given this information, this shows that, probabilistically speaking, there is a reasonable chance (in fact, assuming your previous posts to be perfectly serious and not simply "trolling", an extremely high chance) that mine is 1.5 times yours, and possibly even double yours (though I tend to think not, as I think there is a reasonable probability that you're simply here trolling).  I guess I said I wouldn't get into a major discussion on IQ, but this is becoming a bit amusing.

Anyway, all joking aside, it's obvious that your intelligence isn't significantly above average, as people with high intelligence never make such statements as you have been making in your posts, even when they're trolling.  Also, the following statement is also true even if you're trolling (in fact, it's true ESPECIALLY if you're trolling): you're far too emotionally immature to enter into discussions on the internet, especially with a population of fairly intelligent people.

If you choose to put up a troll reply and wish to somehow back up your statements of supposed intelligence, you must first address the argument I made in my previous post and explain why, from the perspective of correctly writing a paragraph in the English language, it is flawed.  I have already explained why your statement, the one that you have repeated again, "I did NOT say: I'm not sure how "Rate of play" effects the analysis of a set position", shows your lack of understanding that the question that you supposedly wished to have answered was worded incorrectly to have answered in the way that you wanted, and instead, due to the previous sentence being the first sentence of a paragraph, worded in a way to be correctly understood logically by the others here who have answered you.  Again, ignorance of how the English language works is quite excusable (though you would do well to either refresh your memory from textbooks or learn for the first time); extreme arrogance at how others have answered you, in spite of their answering in the way that is logically consistent with how the paragraph (yes, paragraph--not sentence--it is the paragraph that casts the idea in the English language and the sentences that help to add information--if you want a new idea, i.e. rate of play in actual playing, then you must begin a new paragraph, or you should expect proficient, intelligent readers to answer in the way that has been answered) was written, is not to be tolerated.

Continuing to take the bait of the troll...  My guess is that you are incapable of logical argument, whether you are trolling or not.  If you were so capable, you would have input intelligent statements in with the rest of your rubbish, but such has not been the case.
Parent - - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2007-07-16 22:57
Vempele and Felix made the wrong move: Replying to a troll. :)
They took the bait....
Parent - - By Felix Kling (Gold) [de] Date 2007-07-16 22:59
Yes, maybe it was a mistake :)
Parent - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 23:06
Your whole existance is a mistake. Go find another forum to troll about in!
Parent - By Alkelele (***) Date 2007-07-16 23:46
You know Felix, NPS is a lot like a woman. You just have to read the manual and press the right buttons.
Parent - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 23:04
No tsavdaris, you, vempele, felix, and alkelele are the trolls, and complete idiots for that matter. Your behavior here is EXACTLY that of what a trolls do.

I am the on topic poster, M. Ansari and gigabyte137 are legitimate responders.
Parent - - By M ANSARI (*****) [kw] Date 2007-07-16 19:45
I can use a contempt of 25 and get away with it.  I will get a lot more wins especially against weaker opponents.  But if you go any higher, you get a negative backlash as the stronger rated engines start punishing the contempt.  That is the only parameter I have tried and it would be interesting to see how changing the other parameters would affect strength. 
Parent - - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 19:53
Thanks for your post. That's the kind of info I was looking for. Yes, I as well would like to know the results of changing the other parameters.
Parent - - By gigabyte137 (*) [us] Date 2007-07-16 22:05
I have change rate of play to small but for some reason in 2.3.2a on Playchess it makes the engine run out of time.... In 2.2 rate of change to small was perfect and never lost on time but in 2.3.2a I now leave it on normal...
Parent - By Nodes Per Second (*) [ca] Date 2007-07-16 22:26
Thanks for the info!
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Rybka 2.3.2a engine parameters (locked)

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill