Author: Albert Silver
Date: 18:21:38 05/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2000 at 20:27:34, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>On May 25, 2000 at 19:14:10, Ernst A. Heinz wrote:
>
>>>>>Sounds to me like you should test this for the same reason
>>>>>that you did the "X <=> X+1" test.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds to me that you still do not accept or understand the
>>>>qualitative difference between the cases ...
>>>>
>>>>=Ernst=
>>>
>>>I'm not even suggesting that the cases are remotely similar.
>>>
>>>I'm simply continuing the point of this thread, namely, you noticed that as
>>>depth increases, the number of draws increases and the number of wins decreases.
>>>Your conclusion is that this behavior is due to unequal depths. But wouldn't it
>>>be interesting if the behavior also occurred with equal depths?
>>>
>>>Here's the problem in my mind:
>>>You didn't believe that "X <=> X+1" would vary with depth, so you did an
>>>experiment and wrote a paper.
>>>You don't believe that "X <=> X" varies with depth, so you are dimissing the
>>>possibility with curt remarks and implications that I don't understand the
>>>problem.
>>
>>Tom:
>>
>>Before going into your usual and predictable mode of
>>"fight the academic paper writers", I urge you to
>>read carefully what I wrote. My statement was that
>>you _either_ do not accept _or_ do not understand
>>the qualitative difference.
>
>I do not "fight the academic paper writers." I fight with Bob Hyatt. Bob is not
>the entire academic community, thank you.
>
>The only reason I'm writing to this thread is your response to Dann (post
>112396). I think Dann raised a legitimate issue and you shrugged it off. I'd
>just like to hear the reasoning behind your conviction.
>
>I've heard many people complain that very strong human chess players draw each
>other a lot. So it seems that the percentage of draws increases with human
>strength. Is it that crazy to think that the percentage of draws also increases
>with computer strength (i.e., depth)?
>
>-Tom
I understand better now. I too was having trouble understanding the point of
testing successive X <=> X matches and generating statistics on them.
Are there more draws as depth and therefore proficiency is increased? I don't
have any figures, but I could certainly make a case for it. Most mistakes and
blunders are not 10 moves deep, but much shallower and the deeper you go, the
better your move is backed up, analytically that is. The problem is that I don't
think a 5 <=> 5 analysis up to a 9 <=> 9 analysis will show the whole picture as
I think that were the depth to be pushed sufficiently the statistical graph of
the results would curve. Unfortunately that would require much deeper games and
that would take a heck of a lot more time or computing resources.
Albert Silver
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.