Author: pavel
Date: 00:49:29 11/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2000 at 01:13:03, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 05, 2000 at 13:32:13, pavel wrote: > >>right way? tunning evaluations? >>all (top) program has reached a point that you can't do much improvement on the >>program; other than doing fancy tunning in eval codes, better PC (speed), >>learning. > > > >WRONG. > >Gambit Tiger is the result of a big change that includes ADDING KNOWLEDGE based >on the Chess Tiger framework. > >Where did you hear this "tuning" story??? Gambit Tiger is no tuning at all, it's >a new thing. three possibilities according to most poeple around here... 1) Gambit tiger is a new programs which has extensive tunning in king side attacks 2) Gambit tiger is a eval tuned (king side) version of Chess tiger 3) Gambit tiger is a new "paradigm" 4) Gambit Tiger is the result of a big change that includes ADDING KNOWLEDGE based on the Chess Tiger framework. (including eval tuning) no matter whatever others has to say, I would go for the word of the programer himself. but nonetheless thorsten's example was not the idle one to prove anything. it's rather a stupid one IMO. > > > > > >>these are (AFAIK) the only ways to make your program better at this stage of >>"chess programing". >>(this is my assumption, but i believe in it) > > > >Of course not. Any chess program, including mine, is very far from perfect. My >opinion about Chess Tiger and Gambit Tiger is that they are work in progress. >They are unfinished. They are this way since a long time, and I think they will >always be unfinished. Every year, big changes are done in my programs. > >You can't go very far with "tuning" only. > > > > >>so truely there is no "paradigm", it's simply eval. tuning (as to now). > > > >No it's not simply "tuning". > > > > >>Exactly!! >>I am sure he is a fine programer and he can do more than just tunning eval >>codes. :) > > > >Of course. I have done much more than tuning my evaluation. > >So you really believe it's just a matter of tuning? Come on! I dont believe anything, it's not about believeing it's about proving. as I said before and telling you again, thorsten's example proves nothing, just makes a fool out of himself (no phun intented). because with tuning your evals you can reach the same PVs with similar "values" ie, the one showed by BOB with crafty's example.as the one done by Gambit tiger. -it gives the impresson- that gambit tiger was only the result of eval tunings. Pavs ;) > > > > 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.