Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:21:50 02/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 1999 at 00:31:37, KarinsDad wrote: >On February 20, 1999 at 10:40:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 20, 1999 at 04:25:58, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On February 20, 1999 at 03:29:57, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >[snip] >>>> >>>>In a 5 0 game, a program will have less time per move, obviously, than it would >>>>in a 5 5 game, but there is also a mad scramble at the end where the human, even >>>>has little time and has to deal with something that has more time and won't roll >>>>over and die. >>>> >>>>In a 5 5 they can get an advantage and convert it. > >How? Because the program is not designed to handle this? This seems incorrect. >I'm sure you could think of 3 or 4 ways for a program to gain time when it is in >a semi-forced set of moves or whatever. It could even repeat a move, just to >gain 10 seconds in some circumstances. Granted, a human would have an advantage >over a program if it is a stupid program with regard to time management. But why >should any program be that way? Seems strange to me. > > in 5 0 many GM's can, on occasion, reach a won position, but not have enough time left to win it. In 5 5, they _always_ have 5 seconds to move, without losing on time. So if they are ahead, they will win and not flag. >>>> >>>>If you automate a program and tell it to play only humans at 5 0, and take >>>>another one and tell it to play only humans at 5 5, the first one will usually >>>>have a significantly higher rating, I think. > >Only if it has weak time management algorithms. No... the programs have much _better_ time management than 'humans'. That is the point. In a 0 increment game, humans often get into a good position but take too long in doing so. With an increment, they can take that advantage and turn it into a win. Not real often, mind you, but often enough to be noticed... > >[snip] >> >>yes, but the 'automatic' programs have problems as well. They have to adjust >>their time _by themselves" without a human to say 'speed up' you are getting low >>on time. And even more important, an automatic program has to contend with an >>IM that plays 30 games in a row, fishing for an opening bust. Manual operators >>won't allow that and stop after they see what is happening. > >Programs can be changed to disallow this as well. They can keep track of who >they played and when, and with which opening, etc. The IM played e4 last time, >so instead of e6 I will play c6, and next time I will play c5. > >There are no disadvantages to automated programs, just disadvantages to what is >coded within them. > >KarinsDad your statement is right, but the _idea_ is _wrong_. The entire purpose of putting an automatic program on ICC is to play as many games as possible. Not to play just a few to protect your rating (at least in my case this is the way I think). So I don't try to 'fix' something by avoiding that opponent. I try to fix it by making the program respond automatically (such as learning, or recognizing the case where my opponent is trying to 'shuffle' and run me out of time, and so forth).
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.