Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 17:35:13 11/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 1999 at 19:29:57, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote:
>On November 18, 1999 at 19:15:48, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On November 18, 1999 at 18:42:42, Charles Unruh wrote:
>>
>>>Theories on Tiger's success. No book learning, no anti-prog x play(?)? It is
>>>Amazing that it appears that tiger 12.0 could end up being 30 to 40 points
>>>higher rated than any other program, without book learning or optimizations
>>>against the vatious programs. I haven't got around to testing my tiger 12, but
>>>it's the results are good enough evidence for me.
>>
>>
>>Charles, I have said this several times already:
>>
>>* I don't tune my program against other commercial programs. I almost never play
>>Autoplayer games. I have only one autoplayer cable at home, I use it sometimes
>>to make sure that Auto232 still works in my DOS version.
>>
>>* I don't have many of the top programs. I don't have Nimzo, I don't have
>>Hiarcs, I don't have ChessMaster 6000, I don't have Shredder. When I play games
>>against commercial programs, it's always manual games, never more than 4 in one
>>day, and it's always against Genius5 and Fritz2.
>>
>>* Tiger's book learning is almost nonexistent. Tiger just avoid repeating lost
>>games. Tiger is unable to repeat a won or a draw game, except by pure luck. I
>>admit this is maybe a mistake, I might change my mind in a future version.
>>
>>* Chess Tiger has been developped by playing against human players at my chess
>>club here in Guadeloupe. I have always used slow computers like 286 12MHz and
>>386sx 20MHz.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>Hi Chistophe,
> I think you have developed a strong chess program by adhering to sound
>principles. Non-aggresive book learning is one of them.
> While repeating opening lines which have won games increases the score when
>playing against a single computer opponent (specially if it does not have book
>learning), let me state clearly that it does NOT increase overall playing
>strength.
> Avoiding losing lines is good because there are mainly to posibilities:
>a) It is a poor line. Do not bother playing it again.
>b) Your engine does not understand the resulting middle-game positions. In this
>case, while the position migth be objetively good, it makes sense to avoid it.
>It is just like when a human player avoids the positions she/he does not
>understand. I think most grandmasters have great technique, and also know
>themselves very well and try lead the game to position which suit their
>respective style the best.
> It might seem that repeating winning lines makes sense, even in "equal"
>positions, pretending your engine understands them quite well. But if it is
>playing against only one opponent, it only means that your Tiger understands
>those positions better than that specific player, not neccesarily "well". It
>does not make sense to repeat them against other player.
> Cristophe, you decide the future of Chess Tiger, and it is up to you to switch
>later to a more aggresive book learning. But I ask you, please stick to the
>sound principles that have led you to develop a strong and sound engine that is
>overall strong (and will keep hopefully getting stronger), and not specialized
>in outscoring single computer opponents in long autoplayed matches.
>José.
I think you get my intentions perfectly right.
Christophe
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.