Author: Hans Christian Lykke
Date: 22:35:56 03/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2001 at 17:20:33, Chessfun wrote:
>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.
The game I am playing is not a correspondance game. It´s only a game with 2
hours/move.
As told above, when I´m checking my CC-games, I use 12-16 hours
Venlig hilsen
Hans Christian Lykke
>
>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.