Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:39:50 10/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2002 at 15:14:58, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 20, 2002 at 08:02:23, Wayne Lowrance wrote: > >>On October 20, 2002 at 03:36:27, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 20, 2002 at 01:43:26, John Smith wrote: >>> >>>>On October 19, 2002 at 23:59:52, John Rice wrote: >>>> >>>>>Thanks for the replies Uri and Wayne. My time controls generally range from 8/8 >>>>>up to 12/12. I did know about the fisher time control problem, and have tried >>>>>hard to utilize Tigers time controls (without increments) in the most effecient >>>>>manner. It gets difficult trying to guess what time limit to set when playing >>>>>12/12 games, but I get it close most of the time. Using the exact same set-up >>>>>with Chess Tiger 14, I get much better results at Yahoo than I do with Chess >>>>>Tiger 15. Is it possible CT15 has taken a step back in strength as opposed to >>>>>CT14 at these time controls? >>>>> >>>>>On October 19, 2002 at 17:40:46, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 19, 2002 at 17:32:48, John Rice wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I haven't run any comp-comp tournaments with Chess Tiger 15, but I have had time >>>>>>>to play many online games at Yahoo's advance chess lounge against my usual >>>>>>>fellow program players. So far, I have to agree with John Smith and a few of the >>>>>>>other posters who are not having the success they expected with Chess Tiger 15. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>What time control do you play? >>>>>>I read that tiger15 does not support the fisher time control correctly so you >>>>>>should play x minutes per game or x minutes per y moves. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>For the disappointing results in Yahoo(Hmmm, I wonder what your id is)is because >>>>of the blitz timers a certain number of individuals employ there (CT15 is not >>>>very good at blitz). >>> >>>I do not have tiger15 but I am surprised to read it. >>> >>>I know that christophe does not believe in programs that are weaker in blitz >>>and he tries to do tiger better at all time control. >>> >>>I think that you should check if you give tiger the right hash tables(I read >>>that the default setting are too small) >>> >>>I know that tiger15 was number 1 in chessfun's rating list and clearly better >>>than Tiger14. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Uri, my experience with Tiger 14 at Advanced (almost exclusivly blitz there) >>Tiger14 was not the best blitzer and too much hash at these timers was >>detrimental,. As I said in a earlier post something like 32 meg was better than >>maxed out hash. >>Just my experience. >>Thanks >>Wayne > > > > >I'm sorry Wayne, but this simply cannot be. > >Since Chess Tiger 13, there is no drawback for using as much hash table as >possible. > >There was a drawback in Chess Tiger 12 and earlier because the program had to >clear the hash table before starting to think. With 192Mb of hash table it could >take up to 2 seconds, which was a killer for blitz time controls. > >I repeat, this is not the case anymore since Tiger 13. You can have 192Mb of >hash table and play bullet, there is NO problem. > >On the other hand, using more hash table always help, even at bullet time >controls. > > > > Christophe I am sure that for your computer bigger is better. It may be possible that for another computer things are different The problem may be something that is not tiger's fault. Maybe a virus or maybe some problems with windows. 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.