Author: Don Dailey
Date: 10:27:21 09/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 1998 at 02:22:21, Ed Schröder 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. > > >Hi Don, > >That's why I asked for the statistics of chess programs playing humans so >we can compare and discuss. I have given mine. On my home page I have >a database with the following items: > >- Unique database of the most famous Man vs Machine events. >- AEGON 1991-1997 complete! >- Harvard Cup 1989-1995 >- Special matches like Deep Blue-Kasparov, Rebel-Yusupov etc. >- Total 1900 (!) games > >The direct download address is: http://www.rebel.nl/mvsm.zip > >- Ed - > > >>- Don Hi Ed, I am in no way discouraging this kind of research. As I have stated, I DO believe it's possible to emphasis a certain kind of intransitivity as you are trying to do with Rebel. After all, chess players study their specific opponents in an attempt to increase their winning ability (even if temporarily) against that single opponent. Since human and computers have known strengths and weaknesses it should be possible for each to take advantage of the other. Having actual data as you suggest is certainly the way we should approach this if we really want to understand this phenomenon (or lack of.) The very nature and difficulty of getting solid data on man vs machine makes this type of discussion more likely to involove lots of subjective opinion and speculation rather than facts and logical thinking. - Don
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.