Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 10:52:57 03/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2002 at 10:31:31, Christophe Theron wrote: >On March 15, 2002 at 16:40:55, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 15, 2002 at 13:50:33, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On March 15, 2002 at 02:38:05, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On March 14, 2002 at 08:03:23, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 14, 2002 at 07:54:14, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I've lost contact with all information, since I went away 4 months ago. I've now >>>>>>been back two weeks, but can't see anything concrete. >>>>>>Shredder 6.0, Fritz 7.0 look like they are quite compatible with the recent >>>>>>Tigers, but not better. Deep Fritz looks a little below the top now, but only >>>>>>slightly. >>>>>>When will there be something clear?! >>>>>>So Fritz, Shredder and Tigers are about equal top now? >>>>>> >>>>>>What's in plan now? anything which might break away from the pack? >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm sorry to ask these obvious questions, but I simply can't see what cokking at >>>>>>the momment. Results and reports which are posted I often can't understand. >>>>>>S.Taylor >>>>> >>>>>I think a lot of people are anxious to see the next Tiger, but >>>>>Christophe is refusing to give any expected arrival dates. >>>>> >>>>>It'll be interesting to see how Fritz 7 does in the next SSDF >>>>>list. I would expect it to be a bit (say 20-30 elo) stronger >>>>>than the ChessTigers, but that could be totally off too. >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>GCP >>>> >>>>I suppose what we really want to see is Fritz 8.0, as Mr. Morsch was explaining, >>>>that Fritz 7.0 has much more knowledge, but speed got left behind, which he will >>>>correct in Fritz 8.0. >>>>So if Fritz 7.0 is even now the top of a comprehensive rating list like ssdf, >>>>then fritz 8.0 would REALY be the ideal program. >>>>Speed within the software itself sometimes seems to be more effective than >>>>merely multipliyng Mhz,Ghz, with the hardware, although I'm not familiar with >>>>all the technical workings of it. That's just my observation. >>>>If only this can be done right now! >>>> >>>>Christophe, can you just hint something about what's going on with your >>>>programs? >>>>I don't know if you have said anything during the last 4 months! >>>>S.Taylor >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>> >>> >>>Well I'm glad that you ask. Usually people just ask about the release date of >>>the program, without apparent interest for what will be in it. >>> >>>What's going on with Tiger since version 14.0 is that unlike the previous years >>>I have worked a lot of the EVALUATION of the program. I have tried to work on >>>evaluation holes (mising knowledge about positional features) and tried to fill >>>these holes with good chess knowledge. >>> >>>For example there is much more endgame evaluation in Tiger 15. Also better >>>evaluation of the bishop pair (it took approximately 2 months of extensive >>>research). >>> >>>I have worked on search algorithms less than the previous years because as I >>>said above I focused on the evaluation function. However Tiger15's search is >>>already better than Tiger14's. I'm getting a much better search depth in the >>>endgame for example, and many selection holes have been fixed. I also get better >>>results when mates combinations start to appear on the board. >>> >>>Overall I have the feeling that Chess Tiger 15 will not be much better than CT14 >>>in fast games, but that the difference will be clearly seen at long time >>>controls because of better stability (reliability) of the evaluation and less >>>selection holes. >> >>I do not understand >>I remember that you say that fixing the evaluation is more important for palm >>tiger because the difference is bigger when you cannot search deep enough so >>I thought that there is going to be bigger improvement in blitz based on your >>posts. >> >>Uri > > > >There are different categories of knowledge. > >It looks like when you are really lacking depth (Palm version, searching 5-6 >plies in blitz but only 3-4 on some moves) you have to add knowledge aimed at >avoiding tactical traps (better evaluation of pins for example) because you >can't even see them by search. I would call this "tactical knowledge". > >Then there is a stage when your search depth starts to be enough to avoid most >tactics (say 10 plies and up). At that point what you need the most is long term >positional knowledge. The kind of knowledge to tell you that you are going into >a won or lost endgame for example, or that this weakness is going to hurt you >until the end of the game. > >In the new Tiger I have been working more on long term positional knowledge. > >In blitz games tactical abilities are more important. In long games, long term >positional knowledge plays a bigger role, and that's why I expect the gains to >be more obvious at long time controls. > > > > Christophe Hi Christophe what you say looks very very intresting. But some how I have doubts that it will have long term positional knowledge. But believe me I realy hope you indeed did it. Regards Marc
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.