| Author |
Human versus Computer
|
|
|
| I never hear anybody discuss the annual H4C Human versus Computer
Chinese Chess Competition in Taiwan. Where can I find information in
English? I have heard the time given to each player is 1 hour + 10
moves in 10 minutes? What is the time given in major tournaments such
as World Xiangqi Championships to 8 dans?
Mark
| |
| Mc Kiernan, Daniel Kian 2005-03-30, 7:02 am |
| On 28-Mar-2005, "mark" <mschribr@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> What metric are you using that will resolve deep blue is clearly
> superior?
I did not claim to be using such a metric; I did not claim that Deep Blue
was clearly superior. I simply corrected your confusion between the claim
(made by someone else) that Deep Blue was the world champion with a claim
that Deep Blue held the (FIDE) title of "Champion". (Now I have have been
compelled to correct a further confusion, that between _distinguishing_ one
claim from another and _making_ one of the two claims distinguished.)
| |
| Mc Kiernan, Daniel Kian 2005-03-30, 7:02 am |
| On 25-Mar-2005, "mark" <mschribr@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> Deep Blue beating the world's best human player in a short 6 game
> exhibition match is a great achievement. But this does not mean that
> Deep Blue is the world western chess champion. That would need winning
> all the preliminary qualifying tournaments and then wining a longer
> standard tournament with the world's best human player.
No, not really. If we we discussing the Champion (ie the _titled_ player)
as opposed to the champion (ie one that is clearly superior), then you would
surely be correct. Whether Deep Blue is clearly superior might be subject
to debate, but resolution does not require jumping through the hoops of
preliminary tournaments.
| |
|
| I heard in the computer vs computer they must complete 50 moves in 45
minutes, then 10 moves per 5 minutes and complete the 1 game within 1
hour. In human vs computer each side had 1 hour as free time and then
10 moves in 10 minutes. The computer vs computer is faster play. What
are time limits when 8 dans play for a title?
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:09:07 GMT, "Mc Kiernan, Daniel Kian> wrote:
quote:
> Whether Deep Blue is clearly superior might be subject to debate,
> but resolution does not require jumping through the hoops of
preliminary tournaments
If clearly superior is subject to debate, then what does resolution
mean?
| |
| Mc Kiernan, Daniel Kian 2005-03-30, 7:02 am |
| On 25-Mar-2005, "mark" <mschribr@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>
> If clearly superior is subject to debate, then what does resolution
> mean?
It means determination of an appropriate metric and that, whatever the
adopted metric for ability, the computer scores more highly. One of the
reasons that clear superiority is subject to debate is that rival metrics
can be proposed. This problem will persist even given the use of
preliminary tournaments (which are decided by metrics subject to debate).
Preliminary tournaments exist primarily to save wear-and-tear on the
players. We simply don't want to compell highly-skilled players (or anyone
else) to battle anyone and everyone, when we know that most of them will be
mediocre or worse.
| |
|
| What metric are you using that will resolve deep blue is clearly
superior?
| |
|
| The World Computer Xiangqi Championship is interesting. I think the
Human versus Computer Competition is more interesting. What are the
time limits at the World Computer Xiangqi Championship in Tainan? Are
these the same time limits when 8 dans play in human vs human
tournaments?
Deep Blue beating the world's best human player in a short 6 game
exhibition match is a great achievement. But this does not mean that
Deep Blue is the world western chess champion. That would need winning
all the preliminary qualifying tournaments and then wining a longer
standard tournament with the world's best human player.
Mark
| |
| Mc-Kiernan@worldnet.att.net 2005-03-31, 4:00 am |
| On 25-Mar-2005, "mark" <mschribr@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> Deep Blue beating the world's best human player in a short 6 game
> exhibition match is a great achievement. But this does not mean that
> Deep Blue is the world western chess champion. That would need winning
> all the preliminary qualifying tournaments and then wining a longer
> standard tournament with the world's best human player.
No, not really. If we we discussing the Champion (ie the _titled_ player)
as opposed to the champion (ie one that is clearly superior), then you would
surely be correct. Whether Deep Blue is clearly superior might be subject
to debate, but resolution does not require jumping through the hoops of
preliminary tournaments.
| |
|
| What metric are you using that will resolve deep blue is clearly
superior?
| |
| Mc Kiernan, Daniel Kian 2005-04-07, 6:10 pm |
| On 28-Mar-2005, "mark" <mschribr@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> What metric are you using that will resolve deep blue is clearly
> superior?
I did not claim to be using such a metric; I did not claim that Deep Blue
was clearly superior. I simply corrected your confusion between the claim
(made by someone else) that Deep Blue was the world champion with a claim
that Deep Blue held the (FIDE) title of "Champion". (Now I have have been
compelled to correct a further confusion, that between _distinguishing_ one
claim from another and _making_ one of the two claims distinguished.)
|
|
|
|