Author: Oliver Roese
Date: 10:47:17 10/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 11:48:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 09, 2000 at 11:08:28, Oliver Roese wrote: > >>On October 09, 2000 at 10:12:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 09, 2000 at 02:08:38, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On October 08, 2000 at 23:09:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 08, 2000 at 13:55:12, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 08, 2000 at 13:41:07, Oliver Roese wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 08, 2000 at 13:06:05, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On October 08, 2000 at 12:20:43, Oliver Roese wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On October 08, 2000 at 09:28:44, Mike S. wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Should programs be able, or be allowed, to move in *zero* seconds of thinking >>>>>>>>>>time? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I don't think so (except when the pondering prepared for an opponent's move >>>>>>>>>>which is actually played), but I'd like to hear what others, especially blitz >>>>>>>>>>players or users who have programs play blitz/lightning at servers, think about >>>>>>>>>>this. Is it fair, to make series of moves in zero seconds? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Probably, long sequences of very low quality moves in engine matches could be >>>>>>>>>>avoided also, by forcing a minimum of 1 second (i.e. as a common standard in >>>>>>>>>>computer chess programs). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>M.Scheidl >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In opening and (very late) endgame computers act (almost) optimally. >>>>>>>>>So surely nobody could say a competition in this case is "fair". >>>>>>>>>Maybe "interesting" oder "challenging" for someone. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I tried to match some computer-accounts on fics with a 2-12 timecontrol. >>>>>>>>>But almost all dont allow that (surprise, surprise;) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Oliver >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I think that they will allow standard 2-15 or 20-20 time control when you have >>>>>>>>better chances so I do not understand why do you need 2-12 time control unless >>>>>>>>the target is to increase your blitz rating. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I do not like the fact that the players care about rating and I think they >>>>>>>>should care only about the game they play and not about rating when it is clear >>>>>>>>that the rating is clearly distorted(the fact that people can inflate their >>>>>>>>rating prove that the rating is distorted). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sorry, but i have to take that as insulting, since you say i am acting not as a >>>>>>>sportsman. I hope you regret your remark soon, so that we can continue to talk >>>>>>>about computerchess, thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Oliver >>>>>> >>>>>>I apologize if I insulted you. >>>>>> >>>>>>I only wanted to say that 2 12 games against computers inflate the rating of >>>>>>humans and avoiding 2 12 games against humans inflate the rating of computers. >>>>>> >>>>>>I wanted to say also that I do not like the fact that people can increase their >>>>>>rating by these means. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that if you are not interested in rating(I think they are meaningless >>>>>>because of the distorted system) you can play standard time control games >>>>>>against computers that are slightly slower than the 2 12 time control. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I disagree here. 2 12 is _not_ blitz chess by any measure of the game I have >>>>>been playing for 40 years. 5 minute chess is blitz. I have a pretty tight >>>>>formula for crafty to make blitz blitz. and standard standard. IM's play >>>>>crafty all the time at 30 30 or whatever. This guy is more than welcome to >>>>>do that. >>>>> >>>>>The most frequent reason for wanting to play a computer at 2 12 blitz is to >>>>>cheat by using another program. 5 3 is doable by cheaters, but it is harder. >>>>>but to play crafty, if someone wants a 12 sec increment, why not 10 12? Oh, >>>>>that wouldn't affect their blitz rating... >>>> >>>>When I played regularly on the ICS (!), the normal blitz time control was 2 12. >>>>I'm no longer active on any chess servers, and while I realise that what is >>>>considered to be the normal time control has sped up over the years, I don't >>>>think that offering a computer a match at 2 12 is a particular indication of >>>>wanting to cheat. It sounds to me like it's an indication of wanting to have >>>>enough time to (try to :-) have a good game without going really long. With >>>>some time to think, you might be able to do something clever like build up a >>>>long-range attack, instead of just getting hammered in a really quick game. >>>> >>> >>>I am not sure about why 2 12 is wanted. If you can play 2 12, why not 6 14 >>>and move it to standard, which almost _any_ computer will play on the servers. >>>How different is 2 12 and 6 14? That is the point I don't understand. >>> >>If you dont understand something about me, feel free to ask me. >>2 12 was only a suggestion. > >Sorry. That was a quick change of topic. my comment was about the fact that >on all servers, 2 12 is (or was) the "default blitz time control". It doesn't >feel like blitz to me, and I have personally played a _lot_ of blitz chess over >the years (blitz = 5 mins per side for most any club you visit, although you >will find many people playing even faster). > Ok, i understand. >2 12 is a common 'signature' for a computer 'cheater'. The longer the >increment, the easier it is to switch from the GUI, to the chess engine, and >back again, without running out of time. That was my point. If you check >on the servers, and you see someone that is winning maybe 1 of 4 games against >1800 humans at 5 0, but then suddenly they play a 2800 computer and win half of >the games, using a time control of 2 12 or some such, you _know_ what is going >on there. > >I was not accusing you of using a computer, and if I implied that, then I am >certainly sorry for doing so. It was a general comment about 12 sec increments. >GMs refuse to play those kinds of time controls because they _know_ their >opponents will cheat. That is why 3 0 is so very common, except against >_known_ computers. There many GMs prefer 5 3, which is why crafty always has >an outstanding 5 3 seek. > > 2 12 is not really blitz in my opinion. But 5 3 is not "long" enough, to make the big difference, according to my expirience. Here is why: If you play against the machine with an inc > 0, using "guerilla-chess" you either loose very quickly (by getting caught) or you play a very long game. Say 70 moves. Under 5 3 controls you use then 5*60s+70*3s=510s=8m30s. Under 2 12 controls you use then 2*60s+70*12s=960s=16m. A big difference. >> >> >>>I don't consider 2 12 blitz. Nor does most of the 'strong' players I watch. >>>Most GM players play more 3 0 and 5 0 than any other time control. Although >>>most are also wise enough to play 5 3 vs the computer to avoid time scrambles >>>that they always lose. >>> >>I understand your difficulty. >>There is an anomaly in fics, considering 2 12 as blitz, which it is effectively >>not is. >>I dont enforce you, to play under conditions you dont like. Just tell me, what >>you want. > > >I don't really care. Crafty will _always_ play any standard time control game, >up to at least 30 30 and sometimes 60 60. > >I think 6 12 is standard. I have played some blitz matches with GM Walter >Browne at 5 14 (I == Crafty here) and that came up as 'blitz' (no, he didn't >do very well even at 5 14, the last match was 4 games and he won one and lost >three). > >I play most any time control on request. I simply try to avoid long inc games >in blitz, because most of the time humans end up using a computer to help. At >5 3 it is much harder to cheat and win. > > Even without getting the "blitz-bonus", i still see my chance with an inc > 0. I once won against a multi-processor-version of fritz on chess.net under this conditions. That got me roughly 75 ratingpoints. Oliver > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>To me, "standard" was always a serious rating -- you know, 60+ minutes per >>>>player per game. Playing a computer 10 12 as standard sure doesn't fit my idea >>>>of serious, and I doubt you'd want crafty to be tied up for a couple of hours at >>>>a time. >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>> >>>Crafty will play 30 30 which is certainly going to be at least one hour per side >>>per game. It has even played 60 60 in the past, but I cut that by 1/2 to avoid >>>games that would take 5-6 hours. >> >> >>Oliver
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.