Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 15:35:02 11/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
What i wanted to say is: We have programs like Mchess Hiarcs CSTal Tiger. They all evaluate positions in a big range of scores. Higher positional or speculative scores than other programs. But - Most often when you see Mchess/Hiarcs/Cstal evaluate the positions and also from iteration to iteration and often within an interation you see the score jump and fail-high, fail-low, changes etc. Tiger is different. It has the same high range to evaluate, but from first second of computation to the play out the move the jumps and the score is not changing much. the score increases or decreases very close to the end-result. it gets a fail-high or a fail-low or whatever window, and the next big main-line is only 1/100 of a pawn better or weaker. it all goes more smooth. more like a wave, not like a quantum leap. not jumping but flowing like a river. anmon has this kind of evaluation too, but still different to tiger. IMO what happens when cstal score jumps or hiarcs score jumps or mchess score jumps is that the evaluation get more precise, but the search gets unprecise or say better: ineffective in these moments. Not with tiger. Tigers score get more and more precise, but in the same moment the search gets NOT corrupted by score-jumps. It can't because it does not JUMP-. So the search is not inefficient although the score changes. This seems to be optimal IMO. it leads to the fact that tiger goes deeper, and wins. If another program gets deeper than tiger, it does not matter because the tree of the other program is not accurate. the lines the other program that comes deeper than tiger construct are not reality, but dreaming. so the strength of tiger comes IMO from a combination of a) very efficient search b) very clever handling of HOW to use the knowledge the way that it differenciates different branches, but does not corrupt the search process. A kind of clever selective mechanism. Therefore tiger can play positional AND can be outsearch (e.g. Fritz6). I have played and seen tiger kill fritz6 in 40/120 games on my machines 11.5-6.5 and i got 50% against fritz5.32 (fritz5.32 searches deeper than fritz6). Tiger is something special. it will be a class better than the old programs. you will see. i am sure all other programs will have to copy christophes ideas sooner or later, otherwise they will not be able to stop him. rebel can much profit from the joint-forces of christophe and ed. tiger gets all the cleverness of old fox ed and his tiny tricks that change the program massively, and ed gets many ideas from christophe how to make search and comp-comp more efficient. What worries me the most in the moment is the opening book. Jeroen has to get that human-chess opening-theory (game vs. nimzo, game vs. diep, game vs. quest) has nothing to do in a tournament opening book for comp-comp tournaments. these modern and new and long lines do STOP the engines from showing their possibilities. I hope jeroen would make a new book with NO human-opening theory within. or almost low percentage. and look for forced but balanced positions, and not kings-indian main-stream stuff and other openings like the shit big theory line against nimzo.
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.