BGonline.org Forums

Jacoby should be ON

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Monday, 3 January 2011, at 2:40 a.m.

In Response To: Jacoby should be ON (Timothy Chow)

Thanks, Tim. I had missed that subthread entirely.

I don't have a lot of faith in evals, even in comparing one to another and drawing inferences (as one can do, for example, with truncs) in more than broadsword fashion, but it's a lot better than nothing.

I'm guessing that Philip posted the (or some) extreme points of data that he has noticed thus far, but it's still very interesting.

One possibility is that Miran's (inadvertently obtained) no-Jacoby rollouts can be reassigned with Jacoby (same seed if possible). If there is a parallelism to the 7-ply eval pair differences, that will give more credence to the rest of the 7-ply data. It might also be interesting, when the time comes, to compare XG1 7-ply evals to XG2 7-ply evals.

Nack

Messages In This Thread

• 43U-64 ^20 RO
  mtuhtan -- Sunday, 2 January 2011, at 2:20 p.m.
  • 43U-53 started *NM*
    mtuhtan -- Sunday, 2 January 2011, at 2:56 p.m.
    • Noted, Thx *NM*
      Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 2 January 2011, at 8:54 p.m.
  • 43U-64 ^20 RO
    Petter Bengtsson -- Sunday, 2 January 2011, at 3:15 p.m.
    • 43U-64 ^20 RO
      mtuhtan -- Sunday, 2 January 2011, at 6:08 p.m.
      • Jacoby should be ON
        Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 2 January 2011, at 8:48 p.m.
        • Jacoby should be ON
          Timothy Chow -- Monday, 3 January 2011, at 1:32 a.m.
          • Jacoby should be ON
            Nack Ballard -- Monday, 3 January 2011, at 2:40 a.m.
  • 43U-64, data
    Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 2 January 2011, at 9:22 p.m.