Author: blass uri
Date: 00:33:37 03/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 09, 2000 at 02:44:01, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On March 08, 2000 at 23:31:04, Tina Long wrote: >>I think in computer v computer (home) tournaments, that the table of results is >>usually used to tentitivly rank program strength. The program that is being >>outplayed by Tal & then wins on time, is not necesarily better than the program >>that loses to Tal within the time limit. >>I agree it's fair, but I still think that a win for "surviving" until Tal loses >>on time, biases the results. So I just wouldn't include CSTal in that type of >>time limit match. I'd also EMail the author requesting a Fix for this (in my >>opinion) Bug. >> >>Tina > >thats my point. cstal was never designed for bean-counting. >it was never designed to play blitz games. >we tested and tuned 60/60 or 40/120. >wqe participated in aegon and on championships. there, cstal never overstepped >time as far as i remember. normally i gave cstal 3-5 minutes time less than the >official clocks. that was enough. but i never tested blitz games. >cstal is a slow program. very slow. even in relation with hiarcs. >so why should it be a good blitz program. this would be a contradiction. >so why testing or measuring strength in blitz ? I disagree that a good blitz program cannot be a slow searcher. Tal has not the right to speak for all the slow searchers. Tal is not good at blitz but saying that being good at blitz and being a slow searcher is a contradiction is wrong. hiarcs never lose on time in blitz when Junior and nimzo that are clearly faster searchers can lose on time in blitz. 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.