From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Thu Jul 23 1998 - 22:41:56 MDT
Hi.
Actually, I think the distribution of scores (as a function of game time)
demonstrates what we already know with respect to man versus machine:
Machines are computationally much faster, but man has more efficient
algorithms. What *is* interesting is that you can get a quantitative idea
of the algorithmic efficiency of the human opponent by looking at the time
constraint where they perform equally well, especially since we know how
fast the computer is and what algorithms it uses. I find this to be much
more interesting than the Kasparov match because we have time data of
differing lengths.
Or perhaps this demonstrates that the human algorithms are better suited
for the human brain than the software algorithms are suited for the
hardware they run on.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
At 06:58 PM 7/23/98 -0700, Michelle Jones wrote:
>the news media do not seem to have noticed another milestone
>in machines immitating human intelligence has been passed with
>the world's second highest ranked chess player (vishy anand) falling
>in a match to a computer. you recall world champ kasparov lost to
>the ibm mainframe deep blue last summer, but the kicker is this:
>the mighty anand lost to a 450 mhz pc, running commercially
>available software, rebel ten.
>
>of the 8 game match, 4 games were blitz (game in 5 minutes)
>result: silicon 3, carbon 1.
>
>2 games were semiblitz (game in 15 minutes). result: silicon 1, draw 1.
>
>2 games were tournament speed (40 moves in 2 hours). result :carbon 1,
>draw 1. final score silicon 4, carbon 2, drawn 2. congrats silicon!
>spike
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:23 MST