Author: Tanya Deborah
Date: 18:41:16 02/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2001 at 08:10:47, Garry Evans wrote: >On February 09, 2001 at 06:40:56, martin fierz wrote: > >>On February 09, 2001 at 06:08:15, Garry Evans wrote: >> >>>On February 09, 2001 at 06:06:10, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 09, 2001 at 05:55:40, Garry Evans wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would be very interesting to see a match between Gambit Tiger and IM >>>>>Wegner, since the latter thinks gambit tiger plays so badly, and has so many >>>>>weakness. No doubt the I.M. would lose badly! I wonder how something that >>>>>sopposedly plays so badly does so well in the "Linares of Computer chess" the >>>>>strong cadaques tourney?? Perhaps Gambit's play is above the understanding of >>>>>Wegner? One can only wonder, since it makes no sense to evaluate gambit so >>>>>harshly, and observe the program winning victory after Victory? If IM Wegner is >>>>>correct in his evaluation of Gambit tiger, would it not be fair to say that the >>>>>other programs, that finished beneath gambit tiger Played even worse? >>>> >>>>I think you've managed to misread and misinterpret the comments made by Hannu >>>>Wegner. >>> >>> >>> Ok Enlighten me? What is the correct interpretation of his Words? >>>>Mogens. >> >>that's an easy one: mr wegner sees (and says) that gambit tiger is playing great >>chess, but that at the same time it still has a lot of weaknesses. his comment >>is this: >> >>"For Gambit Tiger, on the other hand, it is quiet easy to do so, in fact we can >>cite some very elementary weaknesses. But in spite of that this program has an >>incredible playing strength. One is inevitably led to ask oneself how strong it >>would be if it had tablebases, a better learning function and a greater >>stability in simple positions." >> >>you could have said something similar about an 18-year old kasparov: "great >>attacking chess but some positional deficits remaining. what will he be able to >>do when he starts playing endgames and quiet positions well too?" >>we all know the answer to that one... >> >>cheers >> martin > > > > Ok try explaining this Quote by the international master... > > " It is simply astonishing how many flaws Gambit Tiger has, and still it does >so damn well. If Christope Theron is able to rid his program of these teething >problems the competition can prepare itself for a really tough opponent". > >First of all it is clear the IM master doesn't think much of gambit tiger since >he is surprised that it does so well, with all its flaws. Secondly his very >last sentence implies that gambit tiger is not already tough. I think he is >rather vague about what he means by flaws and weakness. If he considers >Gambit's lack of tablebases a flaw, along with it's inability to learn, then >perhaps I am misinterpreting him, however i see no clear indication of this. My >overall impression is that he doesn't consider gambit to be a very good player, >since most of his remarks about the program are critical thougout all of gambits >matches. Gambit tiger is a great program! but it have less advantage. (learn function, and Tablebases) Gambit could won Cadaques with a good learn function and a better tablebases. My opinion is that Gambit Tiger is an incredible program, in equal strenght of Deep Fritz, For me Deep and G.Tiger are the two kings of chess. Tanya.D
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.