Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 18:57:17 04/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2001 at 19:13:44, Dan Ellwein 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.
>>
>>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
Thanks!
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.