A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Human insight



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 10th 03, 10:03 AM
Claus-Jürgen Heigl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Human insight

"Tailgunner(BernardZ)" wrote:

Has any study been done on whether a weak player with a strong computer
helping him is much better then the strong computer alone.

If they act as a team is there any significant increase in rating?


About 10 years ago, there were experiments by the mathematician
Ingo Althöffer who used two different computer programs. The human
part of his so called "Dreihirn" ("three brain") approach did decide
which computer move to make, if the programs proposed different
moves. If the computers proposed the same move, this move was to be
played. The result was that the Dreihirn played significantly
stronger than the human or any of the programs alone. This was in
a time when chess engines didn´t have IM strength. The human was
a master player.

Claus-Juergen
  #2  
Old August 11th 03, 02:02 PM
Tailgunner(BernardZ)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Human insight

In article , says...

"Tailgunner (BernardZ)" schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]
Has any study been done on whether a weak player with a strong computer
helping him is much better then the strong computer alone.

If they act as a team is there any significant increase in rating?


There are several possible answers to this:

1. Don't use computers as aid, it's called cheating.


Disagree. Cheating generally involves some deception.



2. Don't expect you'll learn anything using computers to play chess.
A macanical robot arm, with an annoying selfthinking ability
while moving pieces, enhances computer play just as much.



I don't see why playing a computer cannot be every bit as educational
then a person.

3. A weak player does not enhance computer play, but only decides, outside
the regular program, to play a couple of lines for verification.
(Same as deep position analysis by Fritz)
In this, the weak player just uses a "cut off" to avoid the chess
program analysing
seemingly loosing lines. (Which is programmed into the chess program
anyway)


A person thinks differently. I have noticed on my program Fritz7 that I
am able to suggest better lines that were never thought of by Fritz.


4. Fritz 6 did quite well on the Dutch championship. You really think a weak
player
can outmaster that by adding his own personal view of the games????


I suspect that they can. I was wondering if anyone had tested this eg in
CC say have 20 people without computers take on 20 with computers.


  #3  
Old August 11th 03, 03:36 PM
Andreas Walkenhorst
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Human insight

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:04:23 +1000, Tailgunner(BernardZ)
wrote:

Has any study been done on whether a weak player with a strong computer
helping him is much better then the strong computer alone.

If they act as a team is there any significant increase in rating?


There was a longer lasting experiment by the german (math?) professor
Ingo Althoefer some time ago which at least is / was around your
topic. You may find some links when you google for "Dreihirn"
(translation is about "threebrain"), which is how Althoefer called his
idea of using 2 computer progs & his human brain. If I remember
correctly the idea was, if the 2 progs agree in the move in a given
position, the human player *has* to play it, and if the comps differ
in their suggestion, the human player *decides* which move to play.

Andreas

  #4  
Old August 11th 03, 08:39 PM
Fernando
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Human insight


"Tailgunner (BernardZ)" schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]
In article , says...

"Tailgunner (BernardZ)" schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]
Has any study been done on whether a weak player with a strong

computer
helping him is much better then the strong computer alone.

If they act as a team is there any significant increase in rating?


There are several possible answers to this:

1. Don't use computers as aid, it's called cheating.


Disagree. Cheating generally involves some deception.


Any online chess server has in some form stated that use of computers is not
prohibited.
Most questions using computers as aid involves online chess. ie answ1



2. Don't expect you'll learn anything using computers to play chess.
A macanical robot arm, with an annoying selfthinking ability
while moving pieces, enhances computer play just as much.



I don't see why playing a computer cannot be every bit as educational
then a person.


a true statement, but has nothing to do with what I am refering to.
Weak players can and will learn analysing games, with help of computers or
not.
But moving the computer sugested moves without any comprehension normally
results in answ2.
It seems to boost play strength but nothing to boast about.


3. A weak player does not enhance computer play, but only decides,

outside
the regular program, to play a couple of lines for verification.
(Same as deep position analysis by Fritz)
In this, the weak player just uses a "cut off" to avoid the chess
program analysing
seemingly loosing lines. (Which is programmed into the chess program
anyway)


A person thinks differently. I have noticed on my program Fritz7 that I
am able to suggest better lines that were never thought of by Fritz.


Try setting the ply value higher is a good possibility.
Or use longer time values for move calculation.

To see what works best with you just analyse some games and see what fritz
needs to keep your mind a grey hardworking mass.


4. Fritz 6 did quite well on the Dutch championship. You really think a

weak
player
can outmaster that by adding his own personal view of the games????


I suspect that they can. I was wondering if anyone had tested this eg in
CC say have 20 people without computers take on 20 with computers.


Beter would be 20 computers with human operators against 20 computers
without.
In this the operators input might overcome the program flaws. But weak
players as operators or IM is a big difference.

The other way around and any weak player will use the computers advice. (if
smart enough)

Best regards,
Fernando



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.