Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 12:44:34 10/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2002 at 15:27:36, Peter Berger wrote: >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. In the USA, most of the tournaments are USCF-sponsored. USCF provides a rating for over-the-board tournaments. Most of these tournaments are at slow time controls. In other countries, perhaps a similar situation exists. Slow time controls have always been the rule rather than the exception in over-the-board tournaments. Internet chess is a different ball of wax. Blitz rules in internet chess. Bob D.
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.