CSTAL on Steroids

[fern]

If you study the games between CSTAL and other engines, exercise performed by the good doctor Wael, you will detect this: CSTAL do knows how to think, but lacks cheer deep. With a search as fast as the average current engines, I guess CSTAL could well be between the 5 stronger engines.
Who of you will do the job?

We need a Doc. Frankestein here regards
Fernando

[mclane]

yes the search needs a rewrite.

[ArmyBridge]

Hi,I 've been thinking about Fernando said, but if CST II have 2100-2300 elo... for be among the best engine's it need to improve + - 600 elo points, it is a Huge improve, due it has a very dangerous style for play comp vs comp (it get into very spectacular sacrifices but some times incorrect sac´s) i don´t think it can reach such level for be among the top 5, ...but at least to be between 2500 or 2600 elo it would be great!!

[Uri Blass]

If you study the games between CSTAL and other engines, exercise performed by the good doctor Wael, you will detect this: CSTAL do knows how to think, but lacks cheer deep. With a search as fast as the average current engines, I guess CSTAL could well be between the 5 stronger engines.
Who of you will do the job?

We need a Doc. Frankestein here regards
Fernando

I disagree.

Knowing how to think is also knowing which lines to search.
If Cstal does not search deep enough it means that it does not know which lines to search.

I also do not believe that cstal has better evaluation than other programs.
The fact that it may find some good sacrifices that other programs do not find prove nothing because it also may "find" bad sacrifices that lose against correct defense.

Uri

[ArmyBridge]

I agree with u Uri and I think that wolud be nice to see wich engine´s find the most amazing sac´s CST , Rybka winfinder or Junior

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I agree with u Uri and I think that wolud be nice to see wich engine´s find the most amazing sac´s CST , Rybka winfinder or Junior

I disagree with you and Uri as well,no one of you has seen the source code of CSTII so no one can make speculations regarding possible future improvements

[George Tsavdaris]

I agree with u Uri and I think that wolud be nice to see wich engine´s find the most amazing sac´s CST , Rybka winfinder or Junior

I disagree with you and Uri as well,no one of you has seen the source code of CSTII so no one can make speculations regarding possible future improvements

Uri hasn't made any speculations about possible future of CSTal.....
How did you get that impression?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I agree with u Uri and I think that wolud be nice to see wich engine´s find the most amazing sac´s CST , Rybka winfinder or Junior

I disagree with you and Uri as well,no one of you has seen the source code of CSTII so no one can make speculations regarding possible future improvements

Uri hasn't made any speculations about possible future of CSTal.....
How did you get that impression?

Read again carefuly and you'll see.....
Of course Uri is a respectable programmer and he can express his opinion,but I don't agree with him here

[Dann Corbit]

Long term steroid use is bad for you. And when you go off the steroids, you go into an 0 for 20 batting slump and start swearing at reporters.

[fern]

"If Cstal does not search deep enough it means that it does not know which lines to search...."

I am not so sure of the logic of your statement. At least in my human experience, you CAN know that a line is important and deserves to be searched, BUT not being capable of going really deep,you can reject it or consider it important BUT dangerous or bad.
And on the contrary, without knowing nothing about importance, not even having a hint about what "importance" means, you can pick p a good line just because going deep enough you finally see a material, tangible evidence of worthiness.
It is what many programs do, in fact.

My best
Fernando