> 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'.
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.
Anyway, thanks for the link.
> 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...
Vempele's comment is related to analysis and as he says in analysis changing the "rate of play" parameter doesn't change anything.
Stop polluting this thread with your nonsense.
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 :) .
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
They took the bait....
I am the on topic poster, M. Ansari and gigabyte137 are legitimate responders.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill