Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 18:41:25 03/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
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} *
>>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.
>
>Ralf
It doesn't matter that much. Letting the programs choose their own time
allocation would be a good thing, but you can't really do that unless you have
the machines running all the time. With this kind of time control you just
follow the rules and let the dice fall where they may.
The game isn't that interesting anyway, except as a game. People have been
doing long time control games for many years, and all that happens is that you
get to see one normal game on future hardware, essentially. Imagine how boring
a 2 hr/move game would seem to us now if you did it on a 286, and you get the
idea.
I think the game is interesting though, what little of it I've watched.
bruce
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.