Author: blass uri
Date: 00:18:19 11/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 1999 at 20:38:38, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On November 17, 1999 at 19:01:57, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>No Chris, you don't get it. If you prune too much on material criterias you >>completely destroy the positional skills of the program. > >Chris, ahem, or Bella , or whoever you are, and Christophe! > >Hi ! > > >I don't think tiger plays fast-chess. >it plays very nice chess. positional alike. > > >>If I wanted to go deeper tactically, I could do it easily. I think I could go 2 >>plies deeper. But in this case my program would be completely crushed because of >>incredible positional holes. >> >>Before the game goes on a tactical field, my program would have a totally lost >>position. > >>Each time I have tried to sacrifice the positional understanding to get deeper, >>it was a disaster. I have found that it works in the opposite direction: with >>better positional understanding the program goes deeper. Because it sees the >>right moves earlier, and spends less time analyzing sonense moves. > >Right. The more the program knows, the more it sees in the search. >Tiger has completely different evaluation than any other program >in most cases. > >If you want i can present lots of games and positions where tiger evaluates >DIFFERENT. often 2 or 3 pawns different than hiarcs/fritz/others. > >Why ? >Because it knows and comes also deeper. >And it seems it evaluates a special thing much higher than any other program. >i am sure i know what it is. but i will not say it. a secret so far. > > > >>You make it sound as if I had found a very specific way to shoot on a very >>specific weakness of a very specific subset of chess programs. >> >>You make it sound as if I was not programming chess. > >>You completely overlook the fact that several testers including our friend >>Thorsten have noticed that Chess Tiger has a large amplitude in its evaluation >>function. It's usual to see Tiger at +1.90 when the opponent is still close to >>0.00. > >Right. As i said :-))) it has a big evaluation function and very often has >completely different evaluation trend than the opponent. >and it wins. that makes it funny. >i like it because it is different. as chess system tal is. I do not think that the word bigger is right. It probably has a better evaluation function. The quality of the evaluation is relevant and not the size of the evaluation function. 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.