Author: blass uri
Date: 00:39:45 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 1999 at 21:08:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Comp vs Comp will say nothing about how comp vs human goes. IE for an example, >Tiger 12 looks _very_ strong vs computers, but so-so against humans. I have >not yet studied its games very carefully, although I now have a couple of dozen >games vs Crafty on ICC and FICS. It seems to be perfectly tuned to beat >computers... it seems very materialistic and ready to accept any gambit offered, >and they try to make the opponent justify it accurately. How it is going to do >once it is out 'en masse' will be very interesting to watch. But it clearly >isn't doing _nearly_ as well vs humans (even with anti-human on) as it is doing >against other programs... > >Which is completely not surprising. I said several years ago that to attempt to >write a program to blast to the top of the SSDF is a _totally_ different thing >from trying to write a program to blast to the top of the FIDE rating list. I think that one possible reason for the fact that tiger does not do well against humans as against computers is that tiger has no learning by position and humans can try to repeat the same game again and again at fast time control and learning by book is not enough because humans can get tiger out of book in 1 or 2 moves. It is not important against computers because they do not try to play lines like 1.h4 I do not know if this is the reason because I did not see the games. I think that it is more important for humans to know how does tiger as a program operated manually when the operator can fix the opening book between games. This is what is going to happen if tiger plays in fide events. Uri
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.