Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 13:38:12 10/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2000 at 16:23:58, Torstein Hall wrote:
>On October 08, 2000 at 03:17:51, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
>Onse upon a time we had this World Champion called Wilhelm Steinitz, who made
>some interesting observations on chess. If you have an advantage, you are
>obliged to attack, or your advantage will dissapear. On the other hand, if you
>attack with no advantage, your attack will be repulsed by a good defence and you
>loose! I think this laws are still valid, and If Gambit Tiger starts a lot of
>attacks without positional justification, it will start to loose a lot of games!
>
>..and by the way, this is the reason GM do not attack wildly like they did a
>century ago!
>
>Torstein
And what about starting the attack to create a positional advantage? :)
Current chess programs most of the time do nothing but wait for the opponent's
mistake.
Time to move on I think. Chris Whittington partially succeeded. I'm the other
Chris, I'm the second blade. Maybe I'll cut the hair this time. :)
Christophe
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.