Author: José Carlos
Date: 12:15:30 09/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2001 at 10:01:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 23, 2001 at 12:26:44, José Carlos wrote: > >>On September 23, 2001 at 11:51:02, Mike S. wrote: >> >>>On September 23, 2001 at 11:13:14, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>(...) Besides, I belive the "scale" (if we can >>>>use this term) is smaler in human world than in comp-comp world, meaning that a >>>>small difference between two versions of a program (or two different programs, >>>>of course) can appear over and over in games, translating into more and more >>>>rating points. >>> >>>This would be the case only if it's not just a small, but also a decisive >>>difference, furthermore many programs have position learning. >> >> I disagree. Humans are irregular. They can be happy and attack wildly or be >>sad and lose badly against a weaker opponent, etc. Computers are regular. They >>always do the same mistakes and the same good moves. Position learning is not >>enough to prevent this behaviour. You'd need a many Gigs positions file to hide >>a weak point of a program. >> Additionally, the "human world" contains many thousands of players, while the >>comp-comp world is much smaller. I believe that the bigger the pool is, the >>smaller the scale. >> Just my opinion, anyway. >> >> José C. >> > > > >I totally disagree with that last statement. If you and I play, and you >win 3 of every four games, then our ratings should end up about 200 points >different no matter whether you and I are the only two players in the rating >pool, or we are in a pool with a million people. > >I believe that the rating improvement for hardware speed advances is simply >smaller for human opponents because against humans, there is a judgement >component (knowledge) and a search component. Speed influences the search >component _only_. Against computers, that is important. Against humans, it >is only 50% of the problem... Of course your point is right. But I think mine is too. Let me explain it in another way: If you and me play each other _only_, and you know a weakness of mine, you can try to drive the games in that direction over and over. You won't succeed always in that, but sometimes you will, and you'll win those games. Supposing we're very similar in the rest of positions, you'll have a positive score against me of, let's say, 65%. That will make a elo difference. But if we play a thousend people, some of them will know my weaknes, some won't. Some will drive the games into such positions, some won't. Some will have other weaknesses themselves, and then you and me will make them into victories _sometimes_. So, everything becomes less easy to predict, and many other things can happen than you getting 65% more points than me. That's what I mean. The bigger the pool, meaning that we play a lot of people in that pool, the less predictable the result. José C.
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.