Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Why Did Junior Underperform So Badly In Bilbao?

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 10:41:33 10/14/04

Go up one level in this thread


On October 14, 2004 at 06:24:52, Graham Laight wrote:

>On October 13, 2004 at 18:22:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On October 13, 2004 at 17:35:57, Graham Laight wrote:
>>
>>>Your "truth" is that the top computers are worse than top humans. "Think lower",
>>>you told me.
>>
>>Not quite.  You seemed to have an exaggerated expectation for how the computers
>>would perform.  I said "think lower".  That doesn't mean that I believe the
>>computers are way worse than the humans. I just don't believe they are clearly
>>better yet...
>
>Good - this is a step in the right direction!  ;-)
>
>>>Well - I know you're not going to give me an estimate as to the win/draw/lose
>>>probabilities of top computers v GMs, so I won't bother to ask - but after the
>>>work I've done with my simulator today (have you tried it? It's quick and easy
>>>to run - just follow the 4 easy steps), then if GMs are significantly better
>>>than computers at chess, I can tell you that Fritz and Hydra getting 7/8 was a
>>>sensational result. Let me give you reasonably accurate analogies from other
>>>sports with which you have some familiarity:
>>>
>>>1. it's like the 6 stone weakling who has never had a fight before flooring the
>>>national karate champion
>>>
>>>2. it's like a donkey and cart winning the regional drag race evening
>>
>>No.  In drag racing or karate participants are very "steady".  Not so in
>>computers vs humans at chess.  Odd book lines.  Good book preparation by the
>>humans.  All serve to significantly skew final results in odd ways...
>
>This "steadiness" strongly implies to me that there are big differences in the
>participants' ability levels (be that engine power, skill, or whatever else) -
>this is what produces "steadiness". If competitor A has a 95% probability of
>beating competitor B, the results of games between them will look "steady" to
>the casual onlooker - wheras if that probability were, say, 50%, the results
>would look distinctly "unsteady".
>
>-g

If you run in an x-second class, you can't run faster than x seconds or you
break out and lose.  So most cars are the same as far as performance goes.  Now
it comes down to the human driver in heads-up racing.  Reaction time, making
sure you beat your opponent but not breaking out, etc.  Those become pretty
variable thanks to human nature...




>
>>>-g



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.