Author: Charles Milton Ling
Date: 16:37:41 03/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 1999 at 19:07:30, Mark Young wrote: >On March 27, 1999 at 18:34:14, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote: > >>Ferret won its match against Wilder 2-0 on the ICC on 3/27/99. Wilder appeared >>to have some winning possibilities in the 2nd game as White. He declined to >>take the draw that was available by force, and wound up losing in the time >>scramble that ensued. I agree with all the people who were suggesting that >>computer programs have become such killer's at this G/30 stuff that some kind of >>increment is in order for the human when this kind of match takes place. >> >> >>mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict! > >I don't understand the logic, why should the human player get increments when >Playing g/30. If computer are now stronger then the human GM's at G/30, its time >for the Grandmaster to agree to play at standard time controls. It has been >clear for some time now that only a very few and best grandmasters can play the >best micro computer programs at fast time controls such as G/30 and below and >have any hope of winning a match. > >Again nice job Ferret and Bruce, and its time for the Grandmaster to play "real >chess" My suggestion (and I doubt it is new) is as follows. The computer profits from being able to move "in no time at all" (in the second game, I believe Ferret used about 1 second for the dozen moves before it was out of book). Give the human 2 seconds per move to compensate for this. (No increment for the computer, of course. Probably difficult to set up on the servers, though, I just realized. Hmm.) This won't really change anything fundamental, I honestly believe, but it seems a bit fairer to me. (E.g. compensation for the phenomenon just mentioned, human cannot lose dead-drawn endings...) $0.02 Charley
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.