Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 16:09:19 04/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2001 at 18:24:41, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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;
It's a matter of scale.
I have made a few test games with Gambit Tiger 1.0 on a 20MHz computer, and it
performed poorly because it was playing too obvious attacking moves that could
be refuted just by looking a few plies deep.
These were games in 10 minutes, and the program routinely reached 4 to 5 plies.
On the other hand, look at the results of Gambit Tiger on current hardware at
game in one minute (some results have been posted today) and you will see that
this problem completely disappears very quickly.
If you want to deduce from this that "Gambit plays better at longer time
controls", very well. But it's of course not the case.
And Gambit Tiger does NOT need a faster processor to do OK, unless you are
talking about 5MHz computers.
And Gambit Tiger does NOT need more time to do OK, unless you are speaking about
0.05s per move.
Just check the posted results if you want to be sure.
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.