Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 13:01:13 02/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2004 at 14:51:17, Mike Byrne wrote:
>On February 08, 2004 at 12:22:37, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On February 08, 2004 at 06:55:43, Eelco de Groot wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Christophe,
>>>
>>>Success with Chess Tiger X! Does it still use the hybrid set-up, I mean with
>>>part of the engine not knowing all the rules of chess?
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, it is a faster engine.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I know it is not the way you have been working on Tiger, but I still wonder if
>>>people would be interested in having someting like a personality editor for
>>>Tiger. I know I have had a lot of fun with that in Rebel but maybe that is
>>>personal. Still, I think it is worth considering for the future? Personally I
>>>don't find the SSDF numbers most important, less important than the quality and
>>>"feel" of the analysis lines, which is not exactly the same thing?
>>
>>
>>
>>I consider that a personality editor would be a nice thing to sell more, but it
>>is a gadget. I focus on improving playing strength. A personality editor would
>>please people who would create a new personality, play a 20 games match against
>>whatever, and claim they have found a significant improvement for Chess Tiger.
>>It is a feature designed to please the ego of the user, who would think that he
>>is able to improve a chess engine without actually knowing anything about the
>>inner workings of that engine.
>>
>>So you see, I do not have a great opinion of this feature, but I might add it if
>>it can help to sell more.
>>
>>Sorry for being a little rude, I'm just trying to express my opinion honestly.
>>
>>
>
>A personality makes a chess engine more fun for many users. It enables the
>user to tune the engine to increase variability in play. It also allows a user
>to tweak the engine to see if he can beat the default settings -- that is fun as
>it seems to upset the programmer more than anything else ;>)
I would not be upset if I knew people will really try to find better settings
and test those on really significant matches.
But I know we will get messages like "Impressive victory: Chess Tiger X
<your_initials_here> personality beats Shredder 9 convincingly by 3.5-1.5", and
I'm not yet prepared psychologically for this kind of bullshit. :)
>Anything that makes an engine more fun to play with will probably help increase
>sales --
Yes, that's the only reason why I would add this feature.
> as just all the professional engines can beat just about about anyone
>at any time - we are left to our own devices to create fun of of the chess
>playing monstors. Many of the people who use Crafty 19.10 SE, use it with their
>childred - as I created personalities that a child just learning to play chess
>for the first time can beat. I know that because they send me e-mails telling
>me what they are using Crafty SE for. In fact during the month of January -
>over 1000 poeple downloaded Crafty 19.10/08 SE (with personality) from Leo's
>site. Those people are not downloading Crafty 19.10 SE becasue they want to
>please their ego - they downloaded Crafty 19.10 Se becasue they want to have
>fun.
But for that I have already done my homework. The current commercial Chess Tiger
engine features "easy levels" that have been implemented initially for the
PalmOS version (just have a look at http://www.chesstiger.com and click on FAQ,
but I think you know that already).
The GUIs (Lokasoft, ChessAssistant, ChessBase) do not take advantage of this
feature, but it's already there.
On the PalmOS version for example, you can simulate a variety of opponents by
playing with the "easy" levels and the "style" setting (normal, gambit, gambit
aggressive and gambit suicidal). You even have an "anti-human" option for those
players who want to close the game and get away with it.
Christophe
> Chess is a game and for most people, (save for the few chess playing
>professionals) it is about having fun. You play the game to have fun. I think
>Chess is the greates gamet ever invented. Almost every day, I see something
>about a chess position that I have never seen before. Then we go back to games
>played years ago and replaythem over and over agin - why ? because there was
>something special about that game or a position.
>
>I really do not think it is that complicated and I apologize for being a little
>rude, but I'm just trying to express my opinion honestly ;>).
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.