Author: KarinsDad
Date: 11:47:08 03/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2000 at 13:09:49, John Merlino wrote: >On March 10, 2000 at 15:42:25, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On March 10, 2000 at 13:39:13, John Merlino wrote: >> >>[snip] >>> >>>As it stands now, the games that you would play (once again, due to time >>>constraints) would be Fischer 2/12. True, this is at the high end of blitz >>>chess, but since there are SO MANY personalities that need to be tested, they >>>would need as many games as possible. >> >>Why not just make it G15 (or even G10 for that matter)? It's approximately the >>same amount of time for a reasonable length game and you do not get people who >>have limited opening experience from losing on time (or via gross positional >>blunders due to time pressure) in the opening. >> >>KarinsDad :) > >Admittedly, Fischer, for the most part, favors the computer (especially in the >opening, when a personality with a deep opening book will gain an automatic 12 >seconds with every book move). So, why do a test that favors the computer? Do one that challenges the computer. But the main reason that the development team >chose that time control is that it allows for a much longer game than G10 >(which, on ICC, is approximately "equal" in time to Fischer 2/12). Yes, but not much longer than G15 (at the same rate, a 65 move game). This does not seem to be that great of a reason. It also tests >the personalities' endgame abilities better, giving them a minimum of 12 seconds >to think about every move, no matter how long they have had up to then. How so? If the program is designed properly, it will estimate how long the game will continue based on number of pieces, activity of pieces, number of moves made, time left, maximum game length, etc., and will ensure that it has sufficient time remaining (or not). Just like a human would. Your method does not test the program's ability to handle standard time controls against humans and artificially ensures that there will be at least 12 seconds per move for the endgame (i.e. the program can make sure that it does not lose on time and makes a reasonable move at all times). The entire problem with Fischer time control is that it is artificial (i.e. you will get skewed results from a lot of people less than class A). There is a good letter to the editor on this in this month's edition of the Chess Life. With your method, you will get skewed bad results from the humans in the opening and skewed good results for the computer in the endgame. How does that attempt to ensure that the personalities are "similar" to their human counterparts? I see >your point, but I think I agree with the team here. > >jm Hmmm. To each their own. I have always been a purist when it comes to time controls. KarinsDad :)
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.