Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:33:23 08/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2001 at 14:23:58, Uri Blass wrote:
>On August 24, 2001 at 13:44:53, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On August 24, 2001 at 13:33:33, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>>
>>>On August 24, 2001 at 12:33:26, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 24, 2001 at 11:41:47, Harald Faber wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>With these losses it is justified that Tiger didn't become single world
>>>>>champion. What is your explanation for this result? Did you play GT in
>>>>>aggressive mode? What made Tiger lose especially the last game vs. an amateur?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I can answer your question if you answer mine:
>>>>
>>>>When you flip a coin, why is it head sometimes, and some other time it is tail?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>i don't think this is an explanation christophe.
>>>maybe we should look into the games instead.
>>
>>
>>
>>It is an explanation.
>>
>>If your program is able to win 60% of the games against a given opponent, you
>>are not going to consider to rewrite it every time you see one of the 40% of
>>losses.
>>
>>If you only look at the losses you are going to believe that the program is shit
>>and start doing a lot of dramatic changes. Probably you are going to fix some of
>>the losses, but it is very likely that you are also change the outcome of a
>>significant part of the 60% of games that were won.
>>
>>In the end you'll be very satisfied because the program does not lose the
>>previously lost games anymore, but oops, it does not win anymore the ones it had
>>won before!
>>
>>So I'll do as I always do after a big tournament: I'll NOT study closely the
>>lost games (unless I can see a gross mistake by quickly browsing thru the games)
>>and keep on working as I do normally.
>
>I think that understanding the reason that the program lost may be important.
>It does not mean to do changes without testing them but knowing the reason that
>the program lost may give you good ideas for changes.
>
>Some reasons are tactical mistakes.
>I did not look at the game against shredder.
>The losses against Junior and Sos seems to be because of tactical mistakes
>and it may be interesting to investigate them in order to know more(I did not do
>it)
If the reasons are tactical, then I have even more reasons to not care about
these games. I already spend a lot of time working on the tactical abilities of
Tiger, so the problems (if there is any problem) can be solved by themselves
when my tactical algorithms are improved.
If it is because the tactics were out of the horizon of any program, then it's
just bad luck, and I do not see any reason to worry about it.
I would prefer evaluations reasons, because in this case it is possible to add
specific knowledge in the program in order to fix it.
But once again, I do not see anything special to fix in these games. There is no
clear pattern, so there is not reason to worry much about it.
Looks like CCC is much more worried than I am! :)
Christophe
>I read that gambittiger's score dropped against Junior immediatly after playing
>the first move out of book and the interesting question if it can avoid h5 with
>more time.
>
>Gambit2 cannot do it in a reasonable time based on my analysis but tiger14.6 may
>be different so I do not know.
>
>Uri
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.