Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 23:48:40 03/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 09, 2000 at 01:40:20, Michael Cummings wrote: >If you read one of Thorsten's previous posts you will see that this was pretty >much done on puepose in order to make it play like a human, so forwhatever >reason it is already known and could have been fixed already but is not being >done. >If you want CSTal, which has only been tested by the select few, then you must >take the good with the bad. If you do not like it, then I suggest to all the >people who will complain about it, to stop the crying and buy a different >program to play against other computers. I am sure there are a large number that >would be suited to them. but we never designed it to play blitz games. the problem with blitz games is that it has to consider less and less time with each move. that is not good for a slow program. cause it cannot build the tree as fast as the fast-searchers. so it will be outsearcherd in the lasdt moves. we designed it to play tournament time controls where it can survive by playing a number of moves with getting time back. chris invested much time to work on time-control stuff for tournament controls, IMO he did a good job. cstal really considers long about the right moves. but blitz ? we never tried out. it was only a feature beeing implemented for custoimers to play against cstal-. since it was for customers, why should we implement an algorithm that cstal cares about the clocks ??? it makes more fun if cstal oversteps from time to time the clocks. it's more natural. >My Advice, is buy it if you want to play against it, against other computers, I >suggest look elsewhere.
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.