Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 14:44:25 04/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2001 at 15:20:08, Dan Ellwein wrote:
>Christophe
>
>in regards to the following quote:
>
>"These changes are also the reason why I believe that Gambit Tiger needs a
>little bit more depth than Chess Tiger to achieve its full strength. At very
>shallow ply depths, there is too much uncertainty for Gambit. It needs more
>depth to find stable king attack plans."
>
>Is it accurate to say that Gambit Tiger plays better at longer time controls...
No, it is not what I'm claiming here.
What I am saying is that Gambit Tiger is not suited for very slow computers.
It needs some depth to reach realistic plans. I cannot say in absolute how much
depth is necessary, because it depends on the position. What I say is that it
will need a little bit more depth than Chess Tiger to settle on a reasonnable
plan.
Once a reasonnable plan is found, I do not claim that it will play better than
Chess Tiger with longer time controls. It's just that at very shallow depths it
can blunder too easily by dreaming about a plan that is very short sighted.
>if so, then claims by other chess programs that they play better at longer time
>controls may be accurate also...
I know where you are trying to pull me, but it does not work this time. ;)
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.