Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 15:21:49 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 Okey dokie Christophe, that is good enough for me. I admit my data is not scientific, I keep no records in fact I dont use a comp anymore on internet, it has always bothered me a little bit but always excused my using it cause I know everyone is using it at yahoo advanced. But I guess smaller at blitz is the case with Fritz, at least their manual gives formulation for timer vs Hash. Thank You Best results wished for your Tiger Wayne
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.