Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:48:56 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 17:41:09, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 13, 2003 at 17:34:03, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On October 13, 2003 at 16:58:12, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>It is a practical question and there are cases when the difference increase when >>>the time control becomes longer. >>> >>>Engines are not close to playing perfect chess so the hypothetical case of >>>perfect chess is not relevant. >> >>The concept of diminishing advantages at longer time controls is theoretically >>sound, and there is evidence to support it in real life. I have played some >>matches to test this idea, playing engine matches at different time controls, >>and so far it has held. >> >>How many times have you heard someone say that one of the top amateur engines is >>"very strong at longer time controls"? Ruffian, Aristarch, SOS, SmarThink...the >>list goes on and on. I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Christophe seems >>to have noticed this also. > >I know that Ruffian performed better at longer time control relative to weaker >amateurs based on peter berger's tests. > >Uri I can add that a possible reason for diminishing returns may be opening books that leads often to draw when the time control is long enough. I think that it may be fixed by using the nunn2 match to test engines. 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.