Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 05:14:33 03/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2001 at 06:51:24, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On March 05, 2001 at 19:56:03, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi: >>I was not very satisfied with Gandalf f and g -and I had sometimes a somewhat >>harsh discussion about that with Mogens- but the new update, "h", seems to be a >>very different animal. > >Just as a little note. We didn't argue about the playing style, because that is >a very subjective topic. But I objected to nonsensical idea of (relative) >uniform program performance disregarding effects from changing >hardware/timecontrol. What does it means? Well, seems that you like complex, scientifically worded sentences that are more obscure than clarifying. Of course I never said that programs must be equally strong, no matter the hardware: what I said was that: a) the difference between my purchased version of gandalf and the one running in Paderborn was too big. b) AND THAT I did not like what I had. Yes, that kind of judgments you look with a disdainful mood. "Very subjetive". I forgot you are the brother of Mr Spock, sorry. >Generally, I don't care too much about other opinions than my own when it comes >to playing style and I think most people do the same. Not a fruitful topic for >debate IMO. Who are you to judge what is or is not fruitful? Any topic is fruitful if it produces debate. The play of minds, etc. Your scientifical posture based in a narrow minded obsesion with data, numbers and anything you believe "objetive" is so extreme in everything that approach dangerously to parody. Yo see, this s general forum about chess computer, not a simposium concurred by robots. > >>I have not masive data to support my impression. Just >>some games, but, as Thorsten, I believe that after many years playing programs a >>chess computer nerd can get some accurate or at leats not very distorted >>perception with very few elements in hand. Thorsten has said that he just need >>some moves: I need some games. > >Then you're both wrong. Chess programs aren't deterministic enough to reveal >identifiable patterns of correct or incorrect play within a subset of related >positions from a few games. The more the merrier. > >Fewer games just mean personal or psychological preferences and not analytical >observations. > >>To begin with, it seems to me that this update is more agressive and >>enterprising, a lot more gifted with the so called "killer instinct". With >>Gandalf F and G I felt I was playing a somewhat pasive program waiting for your >>mistakes; H, on the contrary, goes for your king a lot quicker. >>If I am right, this could be the result of a huge rewriting or just some touches >>here and there capable of important different outputs. This last posibility is >>not so imposible, as the case of Gambit Tiger shows. According to Christophe, he >>just made some changes in the original code of Tiger to give his cousin a >>greater inclination to attacking moves to the king, but nevertheless, as >>everybody here knows, those changes produced a great differential in playing >>style. I would like to know something about that from the authors of the program >>or from Mogens, if he does not mind. > >I'm not sure if the program author follows this forum that closely, which is >probably a sensible move. And since I'm not associated with the Gandalf Team as >such, except for the occasional testrun, there isn't a lot of information to be >revealed. > >However, I'm quite certain that the "h" version isn't a rewrite of the previous >versions. The emphasis were on bugfixing, eg. learning and removing the >extension responsible for the loss against DF at Paderborn, and some tweaking of >the evaluation. I imagine that the tweaking of various parameters was based on >experinces gained at chess servers. According to Frank Q. its also a bit faster, >but I haven't tried to check that. > >So even though I'm tempted to say that nothing has changed to make you look >silly :-), Ohh, Thanks God you did not.... My full career and ego was in jeopardize. I appreciate that. I promise you I will do the same, no matter how many times I fell I could do otherwise. Quid pro Quo Bye I really can't say for sure. The timespan also suggests that it would >be difficult to implement and test new ideas en masse. I think that this is >reserved for Gandalf 5. > >Mogens.
This page took 0.01 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.