Author: Peter Berger
Date: 12:27:36 10/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2002 at 15:16:25, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 21, 2002 at 14:36:00, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On October 21, 2002 at 14:31:46, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 21, 2002 at 14:28:23, Peter Berger wrote: >>> >>>>On October 21, 2002 at 12:15:23, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>> >>>>>a) >>>>>since at SSDF they are testing at 120'/40 [many thanks for this great work] but >>>>>95% of all users are (only) playing blitz games >>>>> >>>>An interesting statement. I wonder if it is true that 95% of the users prefer >>>>blitz games, wouldn't it be more useful if the SSDF tested the programs at a >>>>faster time control? Although it is true that slow time controls improve the >>>>quality of the games, it might be a bad idea to test at time controls only a >>>>tiny group of people use. >>> >>> >>>I think that a lot of users are interested in slow time >>>control and they may not use computers for comp-comp games. >>> >>>I believe that the correspondence players are interested in the >>>program that is best in slow time control. >>> >>>They do not use programs for comp-comp tournament but for analyzing >>>their games. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I agree - but for this group the SSDF results might be of little interest, too, >>because they are much too fast. >> >>Here results in complicated testsuites for long time searches might be much more >>interesting. > >Test suites are not a good substitute for games. > >I believe that the best estimate that we can get for >the ability of programs at long time control is the ssdf list. > >Uri Again I agree - but you said that people were interesting in analyzing their games or to help them in correspondence games. If this doesn't mean that they want to let their programs play all the moves ( which looks a little senseless), we talk about doublechecking moves. Then results in testsuites might be indeed be more helpful than games at 3 minute/move time control. To take it a little further : why is 40/120 such a special time control for computergames ? This makes no sense at all to me, if this isn't the time control people use most often with their programs. The reason for the special status is clear: it is the time control the strongest humans use (or used to use) most of the time for their tournament games and people are interested in time controls that are similar with their silicon beasts. When it is about comp-comp games I don't really understand why 40/120 should be special or hold a higher reputation, especially if it is far away from the time control people usually use with their computers. Speaking only for myself: I use either very fast time controls for doublechecking games for tactical errors or very long overnight analysis for very difficult positions - so 40/120 is of no special merit to me. If you take into account the speed progress of hardware a special status for a certain time control makes even less sense IMHO.
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.