Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:57:39 11/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 17:37:17, Joe Besogn wrote:
>On November 10, 2000 at 17:09:56, walter irvin wrote:
>
>>On November 10, 2000 at 16:26:43, Peter Berger wrote:
>>
>>>I feel a little guilty about this post as Gambit Tiger 1.0 _really_ is a
>>>marvellous prog and usually smokes Crafty without much difficulties in most
>>>pretty games on equal hardware( sufficient data to prove beyond any doubt ) and
>>>I can't remember having so much fun with another chessprogram before .
>>>
>>>Yet this paradigm babble somehow annoys me a little , especially since I had to
>>>view the few posted games which proved nothing ( usually nice Tiger wins in
>>>complicated endgames where it _really_ rules ) .
>>>
>>>OK , so what are the theories ?
>>>
>>>Thorsten Czub/Whittington-alias : "Gambit Tiger wins its games because it
>>>follows a new "intelligent" paradigm diving into the "fog" in most mysterious
>>>ways !"
>
>If you're referring to me, I have not said anything of the sort. I've not looked
>at a Tiger game, nor seen theprogram. I don't know whether it wins its games or
>not, and I don't know if it 'drives into the fog' or not.
>
>I've said, simply, that: the programmer [Christophe] uses the language of the
>new paradigm; that I don't get the impression he's being a parrot, that,
>therefore, I think he is developing a new-paradigm program. I don't know if he's
>got there yet. Actually I don't believe propaganda stories from beta testers,
>and I'm very suspicious of what programmers selling their programs have to say
>(or relying on them for status), or not say, or leave someone else to say and
>then not contradict, and so on.
>
>I've been told what the change is, it's not a large programming change, it
>wasn't done because of 'new paradigm' ideas, it was a guess, a trial out of
>something the programmer didn't think would work, and didn't think would work in
>the way it did. Apparently, when the results came back, he was shocked and
>didn't believe them. To his credit he rethought his ideas, from language I've
>seen he began using new paradigm expressions and thought patterns.
>
>That's all.
>
>New paradigm need not be dramatic code-wise. It is dramatic thought-wise.
>Because you need to turn your ideas upside down when confronted with it.
>
>Hyatt has been reading Kuhn, because he's used, twice so far in the last few
>days, the word subsume. Which I've never seen before from him.
I don't even know who Kuhn is. "subsume" is a very common term, both in
computer science and science in general. It has multiple meanings, but
usually means "includes" as in set A subsumes set B." That means that
set A contains everything in set B plus (possibly) some other stuff.
>
>Kuhn talks of the new paradigm subsuming the old. It just takes it over. Like
>light bulbs still worked after Einstein's Theory.
Common term. Shows he has a good vocabulary. Not that I have read anything
he wrote... He may be good, he may be bad, in my case he is definitely
"unknown".
>
>Hyatt will quite probably become a new paradigmer. He is quite able.
Or he may have been one for years? I think the term "new paradigm" has been
become "overloaded". It has too many meanings. Too many 'threshold' values
to trigger the classification. Etc.
>
>>>
>>>Hyatt : " Tiger has a _very_ good search and so Gambit can make up for its
>>>speculative king safety eval by reaching high depths and sometimes even take
>>>advantage of it . High eval is mainly due to over-estimation of open files
>>>against opponent's king which is sometimes right , sometimes wrong ! "
>>>
>>>Dr Hyatt sometimes has a pretty dubious way of expressing himself IMHO but here
>>>I have an example that _really_ simply seems to be valid data supporting one of
>>>the both opinions ( something I have desperately missed before ..) :
>>>
>>>Game played on 2 PIII 500s , Time control : Game in 1 hour / 10 seconds
>>>increment per move :
>>>
>>>[Event "Computer chess game"]
>>>[Site "pete's compi(s)"]
>>>[Date "2000.11.10"]
>>>[Round "1"]
>>>[White "wcrafty17.14.exe"]
>>>[Black "Gambit Tiger 1.0"]
>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>[TimeControl "3600+10"]
>>>
>>>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8.
>>>Nb3 Nbd7 9. Qf3 Be7 10. O-O-O Qc7 11. Bd3 b5 12. Rhe1 Bb7 13. a3 h6 14. Bh4
>>>O-O 15. Qh3 Rfc8 16. Kb1 Nb6 17. g4 d5 18. e5 Ne4 19. Bxe4 Bxh4 20. Qxh4
>>>dxe4 21. Qf2 Nc4 22. Nxe4 Bd5 23. Rd3 b4 24. axb4 a5 25. Nd6 Nxd6 26. exd6
>>>Qxd6 27. bxa5 Rab8 28. f5 Qc6 29. fxe6 Bxe6 30. h3 Bc4 31. Rc3 Qa4 32. Re4
>>>Rb4 33. Qf4 Qb5 34. Nd2 Rxb2+ 35. Kc1 Ra2 36. Nxc4 Ra1+ 37. Kd2 Qb1 38. Rb3
>>>Qd1+ 39. Kc3 Ra2 40. Qd2 Qa1+ 41. Kb4 Kh7 42. Qc3 Rb8+ 43. Kc5 Qg1+ 44. Qe3
>>>Rc8+ 45. Kb5 Qa1 46. Re8 Rxe8 47. Qxe8
>>>{Black resigns} 1-0
>>>
>>>Somewhere around move 21. ...Nc4 Gambit Tiger +2.50
>>>
>>>Gambit Tiger on the left :
>>>
>>>28. ...Qc6 +1.52 depth 11
>>>29. ...Bxe6 +0.86 depth 13
>>>30. ...Bc4 +1.38 depth 11
>>>31. ...Qa4 +0.92 depth 12
>>>32. ...Rb4 +0.76 depth 12
>>>33. ...Qb5 -0.10 depth 12 Crafty 34. Nd2 +3.78
>>>34. ...Rxb2+ +0.24 depth 12 Crafty 35. Kc1 +4.11
>>>35. ...Ra2 +1.28 depth 11 Crafty 36. Nxc4 +4.13
>>>36. ...Ra1+ +0.12 depth 11 Crafty 37. Kd2 +4.05
>>>37. ...Qb1 0.00 depth 11 Crafty 38. Rb3 +4.00
>>>38. ...Qd1+ +1.50 depth 10 Crafty 39. Kc3 +3.87
>>>39. ...Ra2 +0.70 depth 10 Crafty 40. Qd2 +4.22
>>>40. ...Qa1+ +0.70 depth 11 Crafty 41. Kb4 +4.49
>>>41. ...Kh7 -0.10 depth 10 Crafty 42. Qc3 +4.86
>>>
>>>42. ...Rb8 -0.07 depth 11 ( other engines might have resigned here ..)
>>>43. ...Qg1+ -0.20 depth 11 !!!!!!! Crafty 44. Qe3 +5.24
>>>
>>>And only now Gambit Tiger gets suspicious and gets a first fail-low to the
>>>negative side .
>>>The "new paradigm" obviously won't avoid letting the prog look a little silly
>>>from time to time :)
>>>
>>>After 47. Qxe8 I decided to resign for the Gambit Tiger .
>>
>>>
>>>pete
>>
>>well ,on the same note GM's look silly from time to time vs computers.maybe
>>tiger plays like a GM .which means that he may completely miss some things but
>>sees alot more in most positions .who knows where the gamit tiger may lead??im
>>wondering how good gamit tiger will be at long time controls or over nite ect
>>maybe it plays best at fast time controls .
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.