Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 22:28:10 04/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2001 at 23:23:02, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On April 04, 2001 at 19:09:19, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
>OK... I'll bite on this discussion.
>
>1. I do _not_ believe that you have a "magic depth" that once you reach that,
>you don't need more. If a slow machine doesn't search deep enough, while a
>faster machine does, I don't believe that is a "unit step function". I believe
>it is a "continuous function" so that as the hardware gets faster, the
>advantage continues to accrue. Otherwise you could find some magic depth and
>say "if I search below this I get killed, if I search above this, I never
>have a problem."
>
>2. I have seen the _same_ problem in my program. My aggression is not so much
>directed at king safety, as it is directed at avoiding blocked positions that
>human IM/GM players strive for. But at very shallow search depths, it will
>make mistakes that it can't defend later, while at reasonable time limits, it
>will not make aggressive counter-moves that ultimately lead to a quick loss
>of material somewhere. There is a steady improvement as depth increases...
>
>I don't see why such an idea is bad or wrong either. It seems intuitive to
>me...
>
>And don't forget, you can double the time per move, or double the clock speed
>of the processor. The effect is _identical_.
Maybe you are right, Bob.
What I said is based on a few games I have played with Gambit Tiger 1.0 on a
very slow computer, at a time control of game in 10 minutes. What I have seen
convinced me to stop using Gambit Tiger on this kind of computer, at that time
control.
But I should maybe try again and maybe with enough games Gambit would eventually
turn out to be as useable as Chess Tiger on slow computers.
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.