Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 18:41:48 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 20:47:22, Christophe Theron wrote: >>We don't know what were Christophe's sources. He may never have even had a copy >>of CSTal. >I have a copy of CSTal that I have bought in 1997 after the Paris Championship. >Just after the championship, I ran to the nearest "FNAC" store in Paris and >bought it. :-))))) an OSCAR to christophe ! how much did we pay you for this answer :-))) >I installed on my sister's computer (she lives in France) but did not try it >seriously (I had to go back to Guadeloupe a few days after and had other things >to do). ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh. send the money back we paid you christophe :-)) that was the wrong sentence !! >Since then, I must admit to my own shame, that I have never installed it. why did you ran into the shop and bought it ? >I >thought I would install it with the purpose of test-stressing my king safety >code, but I never worked seriously on king safety since 1997. And anyway my KS >code was so stupid that even Genius5 or Fritz2 was stressing it badly. :-)) >My motivation for the change I have done (which is the ground of Gambit Tiger) >is that Thorsten Czub, Enrique Irazoqui, Marcus Kästner and Ed have been >repeatedly insisting since a long time Tiger >* was playing passively >* had no idea of what was happening when the opponent was building a strong king >attack against it (especially human players) as i said: a programmer that listens !! very rare ! :-))) >I have started to rewrite TOTALLY the part of Tiger's evaluation that deals with >king attacks one month before the release of Rebel-Tiger II. My hope was to >improve Tiger on this matter before the release, but I thought deep inside that >it was impossible to do such a dramatic change in such a short time. right. you did not expect it to play that strong. it was not planned to be that strong. but ---- i think you also did not expect tiger 11.2 to be that strong. christophe : you seem to be often unsure about what great stuff you work out. be careful what you throw in your trash ! >Just one week before the deadline, I had a version that was able to play wild >games and caused a lot of trouble to good old Genius5 and others. It was time >for the release of the second beta of the product, so I decided that I would >provide this new unfinished engine "just for fun" as an additional engine. :-)))) > I >named it Gambit Tiger 0.95. At the same time, a little bit of the new knowledge >of Gambit Tiger has been added to the classic Chess Tiger (which was version >12.95). >Almost immediately (a few hours after the release to the beta test team), the >beta testers started to report that they liked a lot this new engine and that it >was getting good results. :-)) faster than light speed. like rumours on the enterprise : kirk sleeps with ...?! >I was expecting the good "emotional" reaction (because I like myself a lot the >Gambit playing style), but not the good results. :-))) >The efficiency of Gambit Tiger is a total surprise for me. Call me lucky. But >now I must convert the luck to deserved luck, so I try hard to understand what's >going on, and I have to reconsider many things I considered as "truth". exactly. >It is not the first time I have to change my mind deeply. It happened to me on a >regular basis since I work on chess programs. that is IMO one of your main strength christophe ! you reevaluate your point of views ! >It was hard at the beginning, but >now I'm used to it. So I can stand it. :-)) >> But that wasn't important, he ony had to be open to the ideas behind >>it. And these ideas were 'open-source', spoken about many times. Likely he >>didn't even consciously think of CSTal, but, when his surprising results came >>from his act of daring, he already had the language, the words, to help form his >>ideas. >I have nothing yet. I have discovered an anomaly, I was not prepared to it, and >I'm now slowly rebuilding my "knowledge net" to include this anomaly. :-))) >I have several hypothesis to explain why it worked when I thought it wouldn't, >but I still don't know which one is correct, or if several are correct, or if >none will help. time will tell. >This is not exceptional. I have noticed during the years a number of other >"anomalies" which I'm still trying to explain. :-)))))))) you call it anomalie, i would call it genius-intuitions. >Chess Tiger and Gambit Tiger use a number of basic principles. Some of them are >logical and indeed work well. Some of them are not logical and I don't know why >they work. I wonder if I'll know one day. Some of them do not work, but I'm not >aware of it yet and I keep on using them while I shouldn't. :-))) >Most of the time I'm not able to say in which category a given principle >belongs. Just to give you an idea of the strength of my convictions about chess >programming, and the level of doubt and uncertainty I am used to work with. >When you have to work under these conditions, then you are more than happy to be >able to count some beans. Sometimes it's the only way to make the right choices. >I believe all the other good chess programmers have to work this way, and are as >capable as me to manage thru the fog. > Christophe right. thats IMO the right spirit. the competition is open. we will see. what happens... what will they doooooooooooooooooooo...
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.