Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:12:44 04/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2002 at 18:05:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... hi bob, thanks for the description. now, if you could only save these numbers for a few weeks and post them here, this discussion could be laid to rest :-) aloha martin
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.