Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Evaluation Jumps in Gambit Tiger II and other misteries...

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 15:24:41 04/04/01

Go up one level in this thread


On April 04, 2001 at 17:44:25, Christophe Theron wrote:

>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.

Sorry, but those two statements are the _same_ thing:

1.  GT needs a faster processor to do ok;

2.  GT needs more time to do ok;

Interesting that I have said this many times about my program (ponder=off hurts
it, etc) and continually get pooh-pooh'ed about the idea.  :)

Of course, I don't "believe" that is true.  I _know_ it is true for my program.



>
>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.
>

Think about what you are saying, and you will see you are agreeing with him
on the idea that GT needs "more time" than RT.  Which I can neither confirm
nor deny for your program of course.  But it has _always_ been true for mine.
I have given lots of reasons why, from aggressive null-move, to code that is not
terrifically fast due to trying to keep things understandable.

>
>
>>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



It did whether you wanted it to or not.

:)



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.