Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 16:55:27 01/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2001 at 18:57:00, leonid wrote:
>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.
If something has to be called tactical, then finding mates is the thing in
question.
In theory, given a fast enough computer and enough time, a mate finding program
is able to play perfect chess without the need to add any knowledge.
But it's only in theory, it has no practical interest.
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.