Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:40:17 04/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2002 at 18:02:47, Keith Ian Price wrote: >On April 29, 2002 at 16:56:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 29, 2002 at 16:02:04, Chris Carson 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. :) >>> >>>So do I, but why don't make the prediction? >> >> >>If I strike a match and throw it into a can of gasoline, is there any need >>to predict what will happen? >> >>:) > > >It depends on the temperature of the gasoline and the air. If you threw the same >lit match into Jet A fuel on a hot day in Alabama, the match would go out. If >all the conditions are not known, a statement that seems true, prima facie, >could be just the opposite. That happens a lot here, I think... > >kp I clearly said _gasoline_. Not some heavier/thicker fuel like jet fuel (basically kerosene). Gasoline will burn at _any_ temperature I am likely to encounter in Alabama. :)
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.