Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 07:18:46 09/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 1998 at 18:10:01, Don Dailey wrote:
>I have always been interested in this question of intransitivity
>between humans and chess programs. A lot of people claim, almost
>always based on some anecdotal evidence, that various programs
>are much better or weaker against humans or other programs and
>that huge intrasitivities exist. My own thinking is that this
>is minor, but I know I'll get a lot of disagreement here.
>
>I can't tell you how many times I have heard this type of
>conversation: "I played a game with program
>X and got crushed, then I played a game with program Y and
>won easily. But when I played the two programs together,
>program Y demolished program X." From a measly 3 games
>can you come to the conclusion that program X is not very
>strong against other programs but is "crushing" against
>humans?
>
>But once you form a conclusion, then you start noticing the
>events that reinforce your conlusion and you minimize the
>events that do not. Usually, the opinion propogates to other
>people if it gets stated enough times.
>
>Here are the ones I have heard but have serious doubts whether
>they are true, or at least crystal clear:
>
> 1. Novag machines a much better against people but no good
> against other programs.
>
> 2. Genius is not very good against people but crushes other
> computers.
>
> 3. Genius is particularly good aginst people, but just so-so
> against other programs (yes, I've heard both cases stated
> as facts.)
>
> 4. Deep Blue will crush any computer but is not much better
> that micro programs against humans.
>
> 5. Any kind of forward prunning or selectivity will help a
> lot against humans but is not so good against computers.
>
> 6. Same as 5 but reversed.
>
>
>- Don
Also heard (often): fast searchers will do better against programs, while
knowledgeable programs will do better against people.
I have seen no proof of any of this. I have seen no proof either of the
supposedly huge difference between comp-comp and man-comp performance.
Taking Aegon 91-97, not 40:2 but quite close to it, we have the following
statistics (taken from Rebel's home page):
TOP 12 FOR THE MAIN-COMPUTER PROGRAMMES
1991-1997
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rebel +21 = 8 - 7 25/36 = 69.4%
2. Chess Genius +15 = 9 - 6 19½/30 = 65.0%
3. Chessica (Fritz) + 9 = 5 - 4 11½/18 = 63.8%
4. Hiarcs +16 = 6 - 8 19/30 = 63.3%
5. The King (Chessmaster) +22 =14 -12 29/48 = 60.4%
6. M-Chess Pro +26 = 5 -17 28½/48 = 59.3%
7. Chessmaster (The King) + 8 = 5 - 5 10½/18 = 58.3%
8. Virtual Chess + 9 = 3 - 6 10½/18 = 58.3%
9. Fritz +14 =13 - 9 20½/36 = 56.9%
10. Quest (Fritz) +15 =11 -10 20½/36 = 56.9%
11. Kallisto +17 = 6 -13 20/36 = 55.5%
12. Nimzo +12 = 6 -12 15/30 = 50.0%
Knowledgeable and fast searchers seem perfectly mixed in.
Taking only the slow man-machine games played since 1996 (Aegon 96/97 +
Mchess-Efimov + Rebel-Anand), we have the following:
Average Elo
1996/1998 Games of Opponents Performance Elo
Nimzo 12 2402 71% 2570
Kallisto 12 2359 71% 2527
Rebel 20 2371 68% 2515
Mchess 18 2368 64% 2480
Zarkov 12 2320 67% 2456
King 12 2259 71% 2427
Morsch 30 2306 63% 2410
Virtual 12 2367 54% 2399
Hiarcs 12 2212 67% 2348
Wchess 12 2181 63% 2285
Genius 24 2203 58% 2267
CST 12 2175 54% 2207
Shredder 12 2170 46% 2138
(Morsch = Fritz+Quest+Chessica)
Few games to be conclusive, but again knowledge vs. speed doesn't seem to make
the difference. In fact, I am unable to see any pattern in there that can
support the opinions you mention above.
I guess in most cases people base their opinions on subjective impressions, like
having an easier time playing against a passive program than an hyperactive one,
which makes them say "Mchess is much stronger than Genius against people", etc,
while someone else can say just the opposite.
My 2 cents out of common sense (but who trusts common sense?): it might (?) make
sense to believe that an aggressive style (opening up the position, going for
tactics) will improve the performance of a program against people. But even if
this is true, it might make the program weaker overall. I mean, performance
against people is not the only measure of strength. And in the games above, the
most aggressive programs, like Mchess, the King and CST, are not the ones that
did best... So, in this regard it seems we know next to nothing.
Enrique
This page took 0.01 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.