Derek Nalls wrote on Tue, Jun 17, 2008 03:44 PM UTC:
Muller:
Thank you for the helpful response. Frankly, I considered my own question
so obvious as to be borderline-stupid but I just wanted to be certain.
The following entries within the 'winboard.ini' file should enable me to
playtest (limited) randomized and non-randomized versions of Joker80
against one another. Does it look alright? If/When I run out of more
pressing playtesting missions, I may undertake this one after all.
/firstChessProgramNames={'Joker80 22' /firstInitString='new\n'
'Joker80 22'
}
/secondChessProgramNames={'Joker80 22' /secondInitString='new\n'
'Joker80 22'
}
Unfortunately, I no longer plan to playtest sets of CRC piece values by
Muller, Scharnagl and Nalls against one another. I think having the pawn
set to 85 and the queen set to 950 (as required by Joker80) for all three sets of material values would have the unintentional side effect of equalizing their scales (which are normally different). This means that the Muller set would, in fact, be tested against something other than a true, accurate representation of the Scharnagl and Nalls sets.
I am currently in the midst of conducting several 'minimized asymmetrical
playtests' using SMIRF at moderate time controls. I want to tentatively
determine who is correct in disagreements between our models involving 2:1
or 1:2 exchanges (with supreme pieces). I have to avoid its checkmate bug,
though. This requires me to take back one move whenever the program
declares checkmate and 'call the game' if a sizeable material and/or
positional advantage indisputably exists for one player. Fortunately,
this is almost always the case. I will give a report in a few-several
weeks.
Muller: Thank you for the helpful response. Frankly, I considered my own question so obvious as to be borderline-stupid but I just wanted to be certain. The following entries within the 'winboard.ini' file should enable me to playtest (limited) randomized and non-randomized versions of Joker80 against one another. Does it look alright? If/When I run out of more pressing playtesting missions, I may undertake this one after all. /firstChessProgramNames={'Joker80 22' /firstInitString='new\n' 'Joker80 22' } /secondChessProgramNames={'Joker80 22' /secondInitString='new\n' 'Joker80 22' } Unfortunately, I no longer plan to playtest sets of CRC piece values by Muller, Scharnagl and Nalls against one another. I think having the pawn set to 85 and the queen set to 950 (as required by Joker80) for all three sets of material values would have the unintentional side effect of equalizing their scales (which are normally different). This means that the Muller set would, in fact, be tested against something other than a true, accurate representation of the Scharnagl and Nalls sets. I am currently in the midst of conducting several 'minimized asymmetrical playtests' using SMIRF at moderate time controls. I want to tentatively determine who is correct in disagreements between our models involving 2:1 or 1:2 exchanges (with supreme pieces). I have to avoid its checkmate bug, though. This requires me to take back one move whenever the program declares checkmate and 'call the game' if a sizeable material and/or positional advantage indisputably exists for one player. Fortunately, this is almost always the case. I will give a report in a few-several weeks.