Author: leonid
Date: 15:57:00 01/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2001 at 14:58:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 14, 2001 at 13:57:14, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 14, 2001 at 13:12:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On January 14, 2001 at 00:33:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On January 13, 2001 at 23:58:41, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 13, 2001 at 15:03:01, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 13, 2001 at 13:38:48, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 13, 2001 at 03:17:25, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On January 12, 2001 at 23:05:23, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>>><snipped> >>>>>>>>>However I can tell you in advance that you will (probably) discover that Chess >>>>>>>>>Tiger and Gambit Tiger are extremely selective. And the next versions will be >>>>>>>>>even more selective. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Does it mean that it is not going to find a4 at smaller depth? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't care about finding a4. I don't care about solving test suites faster. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I do care about playing stronger, and it's a different story. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>> >>>>>>Basically the stories are similiar and in most of the cases the better program >>>>>>in playing games is also better in solving test suites. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I think you are right. But if my program gets better at solving test suites, it >>>>>will be because I'm trying to make it stronger in real games. >>>>> >>>>>That's why I don't care about finding a4 in this position. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe >>>> >>>> >>>>This is a point I have made many times... "cause" and "effect". Is doing >>>>better on test suites an effect of playing better? (I think so). Or is >>>>playing better a result of doing better on test suites? >>>> >>>>There are other similar cause and effect questions about other things like >>>>space, mobility, etc... >>> >>> >>> >>>In the case in question I agree with you that doing better on test suites is a >>>by product of playing better overall. >>> >>>I have already noticed it, very clearly, with my own programs. >>> >>>I have never noticed that it worked in the opposite direction, and I can even >>>say that I have noticed that I could easily weaken my program by trying to tune >>>it to test suites. >> >>The question is if you cannot improve your program by using the weaker engine >>that you generate only in part of the cases because it is clear that the weaker >>engine is sometimes better(otherwise it could not be better in test suites). >> >>Uri > >A classic example is "chest". Great at finding mates. But try to wrap a >front-end around it and play real games. It will get totally mashed. Because >it is designed to find tactical things and not positional things. My question have nothing to do with what you are been talking here but I am too curious to make it. Is the finding mate in usual chess vocabulary called "tactical..."? Thanks, Leonid.
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.