Author: Dan Ellwein
Date: 16:13:44 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. > >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 okay... well... yes... i was tryin' to pull ya in that directon... by the way, well done on Gambit Tiger... regards Dan
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.