Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:58:51 10/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2000 at 19:25:34, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 07, 2000 at 12:27:56, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>On October 07, 2000 at 10:19:28, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On October 07, 2000 at 10:01:55, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >>> >>>>Why release 2 versions of Tiger ? >>> >>> >>>Because we are not sure which one is stronger, and because they are so different >>>in playing style. >>> >>>I'm sure customers will appreciate to have the choice between a cold-minded, >>>solid program (Chess Tiger) and a ferocious attacker (Gambit Tiger). >>> >>> >>> >>>>Is Gambit Tiger stronger against human ? or against computer ? >>> >>> >>>I don't know. The Gambit Tiger engine is too new to be sure. >>> >>>My opinion is that the attacking abilities of Gambit Tiger will make it a very >>>tough opponent for human players. >>> >>>It is unlikely that a game between Gambit Tiger and a human player is decided in >>>the endgame. It will be over much earlier. Look at the game against Mecking for >>>example. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Will Chess Tiger extinct or "mutate" in the Gambit race ? >>> >>> >>>I hope I can mix the best of the two engines and offer a single engine with the >>>ability to set the "personality" to the taste of the user. >>> >>>But at this time they are two different engines. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Is Gambit-tiger more selective in the lines it analyse ? >>> >>> >>>Chess Tiger and Gambit Tiger have two different views of the chess game. They >>>don't play the same game actually. >>> >>>That's why they are two different engines. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Thank for this Tiger-Gambit little revolution ... >>> >>> >>>Thanks for your interest ! >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >> >>It would be too much to expect from you something more about that difference? >>Fernando > > > >The most important thing about Gambit Tiger is that it has a lot of king attack >knowledge. The rest is not as important. > >I know you could have guessed by yourself when you look at the kind of games it >plays, but it is really as simple as that: I have introduced the kind of >knowledge that is needed to get out of the boring steel-nerves playing style. > >There is knowledge about piece attack constellations, pushing the pawns toward >the opponent's castle (even at the expense of reduced safety for you own king), >destroying the pawn shield around the king, avoiding weak exchanges when you >have managed to create pressure... And more. > >And all this knowledge has received a big weight. A big attack can get the value >of a rook, or even more than that. That's why Gambit Tiger can sacrifice pawns >and even pieces in order to finish a king attack. > >In the future I hope to improve Gambit Tiger by adding king attack knowledge. So >far it is obviously far from perfect, as you can see in almost every lost game. I believe that humans do not know to evaluate correctly if the attack is worth 2 pawns,3 pawns or 4 pawns. If you can improve gambit tiger significantly in order to avoid bad sacrifices but to continue playing good sacrifices then it seems that tiger will have some knowledge in the evaluation that most of the grandmasters do not have. Uri
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.