Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 14:46:04 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 you should get a course in Basic Human Physiology before talking so harsh about scientific statements. We are not robots, we usually get tired (mentally and/or physically), we need to eat and we also need sleep sometimes :) w.b.r. Otello
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.