Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 14:21:02 04/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2002 at 17:13:31, martin fierz wrote:
>On April 29, 2002 at 16:55:45, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On April 29, 2002 at 16:15:27, Roy Eassa wrote:
>>
>>>On April 29, 2002 at 15:50:21, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On April 29, 2002 at 13:56:58, Roy Eassa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How do longer time controls affect humans and computers?
>>>>>
>>>>>For humans, the extra time mainly provides better "debugging" of one's analysis.
>>>>> It also gives more chances to find different lines and greater depth, but these
>>>>>are quite secondary for human GMs, IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>>For computers, better debugging is (almost) not an issue. They make no tactical
>>>>>errors within their horizons. What the extra time gives computers is mainly
>>>>>greater search depth. But doubling the time does not even add 1 ply usually.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, which factor makes the bigger difference, GMs getting debugging that's twice
>>>>>as good or computers getting less than 1 ply of greater depth?
>>>>>
>>>>>When GMs lose to computers, it's *almost always* due to insufficient debugging.
>>>>>Doubling the time (for example) can make a HUGE difference here.
>>>>>
>>>>>When computers lose to GMs, it's *occasionally* due to insufficient depth that
>>>>>could be cured by doubling the time.
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously, both humans and GMs play stronger on an *absolute* scale when given
>>>>>more time. But I think it's most likely that GMs benefit *proportionally* much
>>>>>MORE than computers do from the additional time.
>>>>
>>>>]
>>>>It is trivial to test. play some game/1 game/5 game/15 and game/60 games
>>>>vs the same GM. See what happens. I already know. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Trivial? Maybe YOU have a human GM lying around your house, waiting to do this,
>>>but I don't! ;-)
>>
>>
>>Play such a series of games against _any_ human... the resulting curve will
>>be roughly the same...
>
>dear bob,
>
>if you have such numbers, could you please post them? there are people here who
>believe in things like "humans get tired if they think for a long time" and
>other crazy stuff like that - i have no numbers to disprove their statements,
>but i know they are wrong. do me a favor please :-)
>
>aloha
> martin
Martin, if you word it that way ("humans get tired if they think for a long
time") then it's not necessarily wrong and it's not certainly crazy. The
statement I *would* disagree with would be something more like "GMs gain less
strength than a computer does at longer time limits because tiredness becomes a
major factor after x hours" where x is something fairly low like 3 or 4 or 5 (or
even 6 or 7).
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.