Author: Todd Freitag
Date: 18:44:01 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 1999 at 19:15:03, blass uri wrote: > >On January 22, 1999 at 17:18:01, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On January 22, 1999 at 16:48:57, Dan Kiski wrote: >> >>>On January 22, 1999 at 16:13:14, KarinsDad wrote: >>> >>>>One thing I am unclear on. >>>> >>>>Was the fictionally named BillClinton playing against computers in some of these >>>>games. For example: >>>> >>>>Hossa in games 2, 6, 7 and 8 >>>>GODMODE in games 9 and 10 >>>>TayxBot in games 19 and 20 >>>> >>>>These opponents took 0 seconds per move for many moves, so they appeared to be >>>>computers. Is there a lag problem which would cause a mis-report of 0 seconds? I >>>>do not know of one. >>>> >>>>Amateur in game 3 took 1 second per move for many moves. It appeared to be a >>>>computer taking a full second per move, but if so, why did it need to in the >>>>opening (unless it had no opening book). A human should have taken at least 2 >>>>seconds on some of the moves. This was somewhat strange. >>>> >>>>KarinsDad >>> >>>I find it totally opposite, whenever I play a 2 or 3 minute game I will make >>>opening moves as quick as possible sometimes 8 moves in 0 seconds, so as to save >>>time for the middle and endgame. I find much mose suspicious people taking 4 or >>>5 seconds on opening moves. Either way either could be a computer one with a >>>direct connection the other toggling back and forth. >> >>Yes, both of these possibilities had occurred to me before I made the post, but >>I never seem to be able to implement the consecutive 0 seconds mode in practice. >>I guess it is easy for those with strong opening knowledge and games for two >>such opponents to stay within mainline book for quite some time. I haven't >>analyzed these particular games in detail yet to determine whether that is the >>case (my openings are fairly bad, so I can never tell just looking at the PGN). >> >>For me, even in openings I know well, if my opponent is taking 3 to 5 seconds >>per move in the opening and he has 3 or more good replies to my move, I can >>NEVER seem to use up only 0 seconds on fics (on most any move). Maybe it is >>different at ICC. This is probably why I loss on time so often at blitz. >> >>Amateur made 24 consecutive moves in game 3 at 1 second per move. That seems >>strange. The consecutive number of moves is large and the time is always the >>same, but not once 0 or 2. >> >>Hossa made 14 consecutive 0 second moves in game 6. >>Hossa made 18 consecutive 0 second moves in game 7. >>Hossa made 12 consecutive 0 second moves in game 8. >> >>Again, I guess an IM could do this, but 18 at 0 seems like you would REALLY know >>that opening cold > >I do not understand how to do 18 consecutive moves in 0 seconds even if I realy >know all the moves before the game. >If I assume that I need only 0.1 second for a move then I use 1.8 seconds for >18 consecutive moves and using only 0.1 second for a move seems impossible to >me. > >Uri Times generated by commands on chess servers such as "moves" and "smoves" are rounded times (you never see any 0:00.32 here, for example). However, timeseal/timestamp and the servers record much more accurate move times (FICS timeseal, for example, records move times to thousanths of seconds). Also, at ICC, a move cannot be made in under 0.1 second. If a move is made faster than this, you'll be charged with 0.1 (I'm not sure if this applies to computers, which move in less than that time more often than humans). Hence a whole string of 0 second moves can cost much more than no time, and can even be done by players without very good reaction time. Also, maybe after a good ten thousand or so games of 1 0 lightning chess, you may be able to improve your move speed :)
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.