Author: pete
Date: 14:13:24 10/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 1999 at 16:05:45, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 10, 1999 at 15:49:09, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On October 10, 1999 at 15:35:53, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>>It is not very active, it likes to play cat and mouse without doing much until >>>it sees something in the search, but it is very efficient. >> >>I do have a different opinion. the games i get are different from yours. >>tiger plays in all games very active and having initiative. >>it forces the wins. it makes the game.- >>do you test a different program ? >>older tiger versions were passive. not 11.2 and not 12.0. >> >> >> >>>I start thinking of >>>it as the opposite of CST in every way. >> >>?? >> >> >>>I guess that if someone likes CST or >>>Mchess won't like Tiger so much, and viceversa. Do you agree? Now that I think >>>of it, Thorsten likes both, CST and Tiger, so I may be wrong. >> >>I like the games. it is not important HOW a program gets a beautiful >>game, it is important THAT it plays beautiful chess games. >>i am not interested in games that are dump, produced by dump programs. >>by boring games between junior-fritz or nimzo-fritz or whatever. >>i am interested in planful games . hiarcs and mchess and ctiger and rebel >>and virtual and cstal and and and produce those interesting games. >>this is what i like. >>i do not understand why your tiger plays cats and mice and not active. >>strange. > >I have maybe an explanation. > >Enrique has played most of the games by giving a slower computer to Tiger. While >I would never have dared to do this myself, the experiment was worth it as Tiger >managed to save the day. > >It's a phenomenon I have witnessed myself several times. When Tiger was a weak >program (2 years ago), I tried to play Tiger against Genius, and Tiger against >Rebel, giving twice the time to Tiger (Tiger had 10mn for the game, the opponent >was given 5 minutes). > >Suddenly, I would have said that it was not Tiger playing anymore. The opponents >looked really ridiculous. They played mostly defensive games and most of the >time blundered a piece or two before being mated without mercy. > >The playing style of both opponents were completely different. I would say that >the strength of the opponent has a big influence on the playing style of my >program. It is probably true for any other program too, but I prefer to be >careful and speak for Tiger only. > >So Enrique has given an inferior computer to Tiger, and I'm not surprised at all >that he finds Tiger playing passive. > >Instead of playing Tiger against another program, play Tiger against a human >player. You'll see that the sytle is completely different. Very active and >agressive. > >The same happens when you play Tiger against Rebel. The games are *incredible*. >Until you reach the last move, it is impossible to say which program is going to >win. I recommend the experiment to all the interested testers. > > > > Christophe As I always have to test like this as I never had two comps of equal speed I know a few about this . It happens with nearly every prog ; there was a real cool post by Chris Whittington explaining what happens ( with a ferret example ) and several other programmers agreed on it ( for sure I remember Bruce Moreland did ) .
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.