Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:03:59 11/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2004 at 15:31:12, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On November 24, 2004 at 15:05:17, Brian Richardson wrote: > >>On November 24, 2004 at 12:15:44, Will Singleton wrote: >> >>>On November 24, 2004 at 09:37:21, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>> >>>>On November 24, 2004 at 09:04:11, James Swafford wrote: >>>> >>>>>I've seen a couple of attempts to get some discussion started about >>>>>CCT, but AFAIK nothing's on the books yet. >>>>> >>>>>Anthony- did you ever get up with Volker? He's fantastic at >>>>>organizing these things; I hope he's willing to do it again. >>>>> >>>>>Was a date /format ever decided on? I'd like to play again this >>>>>year, but that depends on the date (I can't play the weekend of >>>>>the Jan 22nd/23rd). Of course, majority rules... >>>>> >>>>>I think a lot of folks will want to start lobbying for their >>>>>favorite time control, but maybe we can start by agreeing on when >>>>>we can play: >>>>> >>>>>1. If you are interested in playing, what weekend(s) would >>>>> work for you (or wouldn't work for you) in the Jan/Feb >>>>> time frame? >>>>> >>>>>2. What are your thoughts on stretching the event out over >>>>> two weekends? Would you be less likely or unable to play? >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>James >>>> >>>>I just got Volker's email from Ralf, and sent him an email not 5 minutes ago. I >>>>agree he did an excellent job last year. Anything in January _or_ February is >>>>fine with me; I have no social life worth talking about ;) >>>> >>>>I'd like to propse 60 2 as the timecontrol for CCT. The problem with a large >>>>increment is that since we are playing with computers, there will always be *at >>>>least one* game that goes out to 150 moves. So a 10 second increment will give >>>>the average game 60*10 = 10 minutes, while delaying the tournament 150*10 = 25 >>>>minutes. Therefore, I think keeping the increment small is a good idea, and if >>>>you screw up your time allocation, that is your problem. At 60 2, we can pretty >>>>much guarantee all games will be finished in 60 + 60 + 4*150/60 = 2:10, which is >>>>about right IMO. >>>> >>>>I'd also like to point out (again) that I don't like tiebreak blitz games. :) >>>> >>>>anthony >>> >>>With a 60 2 time control, you might get more than tiebreak blitz games. :) >>> >>>45 10, with 9 rounds over one weekend, seems to have worked well for the last >>>two events. CCT4 had 2 weekends at 60 10. 2 weekends makes it tough for some >>>folks to participate, and I think we ought to try to continue to make it as >>>accessible as we can. >>> >>>So I would vote for keeping the same format as last year. Late January or early >>>Feb is fine. >>> >>>Will >> >>I also would prefer only one weekend. >>Also, I don't think there is a significant difference in what moves most engines >>would play between 45 and 60, but I do think it is very important to try to >>finish each round in under 2 hours so the maximum number of rounds per day can >>be scheduled. >>Brian > >I am not so sure. 45 seconds per move isn't really very much; Zappa will >probably only reach 12 ply in critical positions at that timecontrol. I still >regularly see the best move change at higher ply. > >anthony 1)By this logic no time control is enough. I am sure that you will still see the best move change at higher ply even if you search 13 or 14 plies. 2)If we assume that you have 1 hour per game and that the game takes 60 moves then you have 1 minute per move and you practically can use more than it because of pondering. 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.