Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 12:35:38 04/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2001 at 14:09:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I totally disagree. I will be happy to give you an immensely aggressive >version of Crafty. But I believe it will lose _way_ more than it wins when >compared to the normal version. There is aggression, and there is "aggression". >and too much of _anything_ is not a good thing. the idea behind agression is, that the program will create a main-line out of aggressive moves that maybe lead to a plan. this is of course a very rough method, but some people in this forum wrote that they believe the increase of agression bonus in gambit-tigers evaluation functions would lead to the playing style of it. i do disagree of course. my point of view was that increasing aggression terms leads to the style YOU describe. in cstal and i think in gambit tiger, this was NOT the method to produce a program that plays a plan. >If a program tries _too_ hard to be aggressive, the passive program can safely >sit back and wait for the aggressive version to fall apart. At that point, the >only question is "What has the aggressive program given up to this point?" If >it is a positional weakness, it might not be critical. If it was a piece for >a pawn and dangerous attack, and the attack doesn't work, it will most likely >lose. right. but you have to risk something when you want to create a thesis. you cannot live without risking something. of course you can live without risking something. you can swim with the mainstream. and do what you are told. and do what is in. and when nobody forces you to do anything, you do nothing. but - this is not living at all IMO. and it is not playing chess IMO. you have to risk for an idea. for life. if your idea/thesis/plan works: brilliant ! if not - you lose. IMO gambit tiger is stronger than rebel-tiger. >Initiative is one thing. uncontrolled aggression is something else. I haven't >broached the tiger aggression issue in a good while, because it didn't lead >anywhere. But Uli has a point. When I used to play in our local chess club >a lot, I found myself able to beat 1700 players almost at will. Unless I >decided that "I am going to attack and I don't care what he does to try to stop >it..." When I played like that, I found myself losing more than I expected. of course uli has a point. but i do have a point to. before christophe invented gambit-tiger, he particiated in paderborn championship. i was there too. and we had to watch that tiger was as strong as shredder (in secret autoplay they got 50% against each other) but shredder won the tournament, and tiger made a weak appearance. why ? i have replayed the games and i am sure: it lost because it did nothing. >Aggression is ok, but too much is very likely worse than not enough. >Particularly if you can't out-search your opponent which lets him "call your >bluff and stuff it." right. but gambit tiger is difficult to outsearch IMO :-))
This page took 0 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.