Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 16:21:27 06/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2002 at 12:47:37, Christophe Theron wrote: <snip>> >>>Just out of curiosity: what did you suspect??? >> >>I suspected that Tiger would be a bit slow on this position (relative to the >>other strong programs that is). I figured its pruning would have some trouble >>with this particular case... > > > >That is maybe the case, yes. I don't care much about solving test suites faster. Right, although this position did occur in a game but it is still just a one off position. > >I know that if I wanted to I could. We all know that it is easy to extend more >aggressively on checks, responses to checks with few legal moves, recaptures and >so on. > >But that makes the program weaker overall. Sure, I understand this. > >What I like the most is to work in making the program stronger overall (say "in >real games"), and then notice that it gets better scores on test suites. agreed > >I remember it happened on the Louguet Chess Test 2 with version 12.0. I was >happy with that. > >There are lots of positions where Tiger does not perform well and has "tactical >holes". That's OK with me, because after all human players have exactly the same >problems, even the strongest. I still believe human players have a superior >search, and having such holes is a part of it. Yes these holes must be accepted to a certain extent. The trick of course is to plug the most important holes. Does this position show us a hole that is important? I'm not sure, but its worth a look I think. I saw this position exposed a hole in my program, so I was curious what other programs had the same hole. I know Tiger prunes aggressively, thats why I asked about it. Peter > > > > 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.