Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 13:49:03 10/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2000 at 16:38:12, Christophe Theron wrote: >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 Of course there is a difference between going for an all out attack or play activily to force weekness in the oposition camp! Anyway....... Good Luck!! Torstein
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.