Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:07:47 02/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2000 at 16:43:42, Jeroen van Dorp wrote:
>On February 15, 2000 at 16:27:29, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>Tiger is NOT focused on comp-comp games. It happens to do well in comp-comp,
>
>Nice understatement. ;)
>
>
>>but
>>it has not been designed with this in mind.
>>
>
>
>I stand corrected.
>
>Point was of course that it's not easy to compare engines on such a one-to-one
>basis. If Kasparov is rated 150 points higher that John Doe, but John Doe never
>lost one of his 1500 games against Kasparov, it can be a tricky question.
>Obviously, John Doe is a Kasparov-man. It was not by choice, but the result is
>the same. Since we have Elo lists, we say : Kasparov is the strongest.
>(very small print: some say Fischer still is...:))
(even smaller prints: reminds me of someone claiming that CM6000 is still the
best)
;) :)
(sorry Michael) ;)
>From time to time they pop up - the strongest, the best, you know, but it has
>more nuance than "which one is stronger?" . If we say SSDF rules, we should say:
>you can't compare, because they're not both in the list.
>At that time we resort to other measures, like playing style.
I personally find the playing style of Rebel much more enjoyable that the
playing style of Rebel-Tiger.
And I think that is one of the reason why Rebel does so good against
GrandMasters: it has a damn good positional style. You almost never find a
position that Rebel does not understand.
Rebel-Tiger (Chess Tiger engine) plays solid chess, but games are not as
exciting.
One amazing experiment: let Rebel play against Rebel-Tiger. I did this once, and
it was very very interesting. Fireworks all the time, very undecided games until
the last move.
I do not know why it is so, but these two really spit electricity when they have
to play each other.
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.