Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:41:24 11/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 08:24:54, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On November 10, 2000 at 07:41:28, stuart taylor wrote: > >>Of course he may have to work on it a bit, but he made TWO programs so that he >>could see the difference. Very clever idea! But I am suggesting that a simple >>combination, with not too much else, may do the trick, and perhaps it could be >>done through internet upgrade? And next year could be even better! > >Judging from the comments made from the programmer himself the programs weren't >created independently of each other. I think he wrote that the knowledge of >Tiger 13.0 is incorporated in Gambit Tiger, while Gambit Tiger has additional >knowledge about attacking the opponents king. This is furthermore facilitated by >tweaking variables and paramters in a more (undefined) speculative direction, >which encourages the program to make use of that additional knowledge. That's my >understanding of the two programs, which might be incorrect. > >Given that it's a correct estimation, combining the two might not add anything >at all to the strength. Especially if Gambit Tiger is the stronger of the two, >because it might dampen its main strength, ie. the attacking style of play, in >favour of the (supposedly) more balanced style of Tiger 13.0. However, it might >reduce the number of games where the speculative approach fails miserably. >Weighing the two possibilities against each other seem quite difficult to me >without testing. > >Mogens. The question is how do you combine the 2 programs. I thought about the idea of a root processor that decides based on the root position which engine to use. It can be based on previous evaluations of the program. I think that starting to use tiger13 when Gambittiger shows big scores may be a good idea because when gambit shows a big score the job of attacking was done and the problem of tiger that I found in the game against crafty that was posted by thorsten was that it did not like to go to an endgame and prefered speculation of 3 pawns and not winning a rook for a bishop but I do not believe that it can lead to an improvement of more than 20-30 elo. Another idea is to divide the score by 2 in cases when significant part of the score is based on a speculations in order to encourage winning material if it is possible to do it when there is no big score that is based on speculation. I can see problems with this idea because you have to be careful not to prefer small speculation above big speculation so maybe it is better to divide the score by 2 in the every position in the middle game or in every position when the type of it is speculative when the size of the speculation is not important. Uri
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.