Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:05:25 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 I don't save 'em... but from experience.. Crafty vs a GM at 1 0 will win almost every game at 5 0 will win most games by a big margin but will draw or lose one here and there. at 15 0 will win the majority of the games but will lose a few more and draw several more. at 30 0 will win more than it loses with even more draws thrown in. at 60 0 it might "break even" or do slightly better. The curve is clear. As you give both more time, the humans do better and better vs the computer. It has _always_ been this way... IE when Deep Thought was producing its 2650 over 25 games, IM Mike Valvo played it two games at one move per day and totally trounced it in both, while at blitz he had absolutely no chance and at 40/2hr would have had great trouble holding on to his head... Another way is to check out computer ratings on ICC. Bullet ratings are always higher then blitz, while blitz ratings are always higher than standard. Same idea...
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.