Author: Chessfun
Date: 14:20:33 03/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2001 at 17:10:11, Hans Christian Lykke wrote:
>On March 29, 2001 at 14:58:57, Chessfun wrote:
>
>>On March 29, 2001 at 12:45:36, Hans Christian Lykke wrote:
>>
>>>On March 29, 2001 at 12:28:43, Ralf Elvsén wrote:
>>>
>>>>On March 29, 2001 at 12:22:08, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On March 29, 2001 at 12:18:26, Ralf Elvsén wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On March 29, 2001 at 11:27:23, Hans Christian Lykke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>32... g5 {-0.78/17 7200} 33. f5 {-1.19/16 120:00m} *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[D] rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Shredder played the move expected by Deep Fritz: 33.f5
>>>>>>>Shredders evaluation dropped from -0.48/16 to -1.19/16 ?!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Shredder now expecting 33...Rxf5 34. Re3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Next move by Deep Fritz on Friday
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Venlig hilsen
>>>>>>>Hans Christian Lykke
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In this situation I wonder: are you keeping a strict 2h/move? Or do you
>>>>>>let Shredder look at all moves at the depth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you terminate the search after exactly 2h and don't let shredder finish
>>>>>>an iteration I think this game isn't particularly interesting. This is
>>>>>>not even close to how a program would allocate time in a real game.
>>>
>>>Off course this is not a real game. It´s played by me, and I have chosen the
>>>time to use ;-)
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ralf
>>>>>
>>>>>Looks very close to a fixed time per move I think.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bertil
>>>>
>>>>Yes, and how many games are played in that way? And how many engines
>>>>have a search able to handle that? But if you
>>>>know that Fritz and Shredder can handle this I am happy to have
>>>>learned something new.
>>>
>>>Shredder can handle this, setting the time to exactly 120 min.
>>>Deep Fritz cannot, so when 120 min. are over I press the "space" button and DF
>>>play the move.
>>>
>>>BTW I think that 2 hours are better than 1 hour as played in the other Deep
>>>Fritz - Shredder game.
>>
>>
>>
>>I don't think there is any relationship nor see how 2 hours is better than 1.
>>It's the same as saying 4 would be better than 2
>
>I think that 2 is better than 1, 4 is better than 2, 8 is better than 4, 16 is
>better than 8.
>When I´m checking my correspondence games, I normally let the computer run for
>about 12-16 hours.
>
>Venlig hilsen
>Hans Christian Lykke (ICCF 2439)
>
Replying to that portion alone takes out of context what I'm saying.
You are playing one game as we are. How does one game allow you to determine
which program is better for correspondance? it don't.
In each case it is a single game and as such I see no difference were it
30 mins/move, 1 hour, 2 hours or 4 hours. Result is the same, no more knowledge
about which would be better for correspondance. In the case of my game there
never was an objective.
Sarah.
>
>
>, or pondering is better than
>>not which has a heavy bearing in deciding the winner.
>>
>>The objective is the determining factor as to the time controls chosen and in
>>both cases there is little to be gained from one such game.
>>
>>Sarah.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Venlig hilsen
>>>Hans Christian Lykke
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Think how you play yourself: you play 40/120. You decide to allocate
>>>>close to 3min/move. After 2 min 59 s you realize that the move you
>>>>think looked very good will give away your queen for nothing. Wouldn't
>>>>you spend more time trying to find a better move and be very upset if
>>>>someone came and pushed the "Move now"-button?
>>>>
>>>>Ralf
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.