Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 00:17:51 10/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2000 at 01:50:24, Uri Blass wrote:
>On October 07, 2000 at 21:04:41, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On October 07, 2000 at 19:58:51, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>I think that just with the king attack knowledge of a strong human player (not
>>even a grandmaster) a chess program could become a very dangerous opponent.
>>Because the chess program has the advantage of the deep search.
>
>I agree but my impression based on the games is that gambit tiger has this
>knowledge.
>
>It is not simple to know when king attack does not work and if you can improve
>gambit tiger to avoid wrong sacrifices then it seems to me that in this case it
>has more knowledge than humans.
>>
>>Human players can win against strong chess programs by avoiding tactics. When a
>>king attack occurs it's a different story. The tactical complexity is already
>>there and you have to deal with it.
>>
>>That's why I believe that Gambit Tiger is stronger then Chess Tiger against
>>human opponents.
>>
>>I have to add immediately that amongst the grandmasters you find tactical
>>geniuses that can handle such complex positions. However, the computer has
>>better chances in these positions than in quiet positions.
>>
>>I have the deep search already, so now I need to add more king attack
>>knowledge... I'm not pretending it will be better than the gransmaster's, but
>>more will be better.
>
>I have a different opinion.
>I see a lot of king attacks in gambittiger's games when I see less
>king attack's in most humans games including grandmaster's games.
>
>I believe that the reason is that most humans do not know how to play for king
>attack.
>
>Uri
Well that sounds strange to me, but I'm not a strong chess player.
I think your opinion must be investigated further. That's interesting.
One thing for sure: I'm going to make additional researches about king attacks,
and I'll add the result of this work into Gambit Tiger.
Christophe
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.