Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:00:08 04/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 1999 at 06:30:32, Mark Young wrote: [snip] >At one time I was firmly in the camp that chess is chess, but as I have tested >programs more against humans. It is much harder to deny that some programs play >much better against humans then they do against other chess programs and vice >versa. > >I will give one examples for each case, much better against humans, and much >better against computers and see what others think. > >Much better at playing computers then humans. > >Junior 4.6 > >Much better at playing humans then computers. > >Crafty > >I found that each one of the example programs played +100 rating points better >when playing against computers for Junior 4.6, and humans for Crafty. That's a very interesting proposition. If you have actual data, it may be worth while to run calculations and produce the mathematical ELO scores against both types of opponents. Bruce made a very sound post that showed -> most of the time it's pure conjecture. You seem to have made some measurements. A careful measurement of the data should prove interesting for a number of reasons. 1. We can examine those programs and find out what is it about the way that they play that makes them superior against a particular type of opponent. 2. We can use this information to *possibly* write algorithms that are better against humans or machines as we see fit. 3. We can look at the "favorite strategies" tried by these programs and ponder 'why' are they successful against a particular type of opponent. When I think of what I have seen regarding these programs, I have a fuzzy emperical feeling that you may be right about both of them.
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.