Author: Keith Ian Price
Date: 15:31:42 04/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2002 at 13:10:06, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On April 29, 2002 at 12:26:15, Uri Blass wrote: > > >>It is possible that the computers could play also better at 40/2 hours and even >>if you assume that the computers play the same I am not sure if he could win the >>better positions at 40/2 hours. >> > >I agree. > >Two things that favours comps at 40/2h : > >1) Computer can deepen very much the analysis at 40/2 and reach elo level far >better than shorter reflection time. > >2) Humans tends to fatigue mentally in the long run. > > >Any objections ? > >w.b.r. >Otello Since this discussion is about GMs vs. comps, I would have to say that a GM that has difficulty staying awake at a 40/2hrs time control will not be at a GM rating for long. So using Darwininan principles, we can safely assume that people who make it to GM status, do not have difficulty with the length of classic time controls. And since no one is suggesting 40/10hrs, only that GMs will fare better at classic time controls, your above point is moot for the sake of the original discussion. However it is somewhat valid for me, as I get bored (not tired), and don't pay attention for more than 1 minute per move. kp > > >>He had the advantage against hiarcs and had a winning position against Junior >>but I am not sure if he could win both games. >>Remember that humans do not play perfect even at 2 hours/40 moves. >> >>Uri
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.