Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:36:46 09/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 1998 at 12:55:33, Tim Mirabile wrote: >On September 01, 1998 at 06:31:39, Jouni Uski wrote: > >>So far I haven't seen any statistical proof, that one program is better against >>human than against comp (or reverse). > >It all comes back to the same thing. We don't have enough comp-human games at >slow time controls, compared to 60000+ comp-comp games played by SSDF, to make >any kind of comparison. So just because you haven't seen the proof, doesn't >mean it's not true, and of course this also does not mean that it is true. Here's one interesting bit of data.. during the month of July, and early August, I had a pretty serious bug in crafty's eval function. During this time, crafty was not able to win even 1 of every 20 games against computers, yet it was having the same 80% win ratio against the usual group of GM challengers that it always has... And it plays so many more games against GM players than against computers that this went undetected for quite a while... The question is, why did this happen? Obviously the eval bug was seriously affecting its play, because I saw game after game where it would make a move and see things fall apart, when playing a computer, but against humans it didn't happen. So clearly there is some significant difference between playing a computer and a human. My speculation is that the tactical skill of a computer is so good that any little bit of bogus analysis will eventually lead to problems, while against a human, mistakes deep in the tree are not nearly as important as how the position is "preserved" through the game... The bug has been fixed, scores against computers are now much better, yet against GM's it has not changed appreciably at all...
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.