Author: blass uri
Date: 22:12:29 03/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2000 at 14:47:08, KarinsDad wrote: >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. I do not think that fisher time control favour the computer. The opposite 15 0 time control favour the computer because humans often get to big time trouble when in fidher time control they do not lose on time. > > > 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. I know no program in the world that is designed properly. I think that programs do many stupid mistakes and this is one of them. One of my many ideas for Junior was to use more time in pawn endgames. Amir Ban told me that it is a good idea but I think that he probably does not use it(I am sure that Junior does not use most of my ideas). Humans know to use this rule in pawn endgames but computers know to use their time better because the mistakes of humans in using time are bigger. I know that humans forget about the clock when they are interested in the position and see that they are in big time trouble too late. Something like this never happen to most computer programs. Some humans want to play the best move in every position and the way to win them is to give them 2 possibilities when they evaluate them as the same and they will think a long time because they want to find the best move and they will get to a big time trouble. Humans do stupid errors in time managament and the mistakes of computers are really smaller. I do not think computers can get more than 20 elo rating improvement by better time managemant when some humans can get 100 elo rating if they improve their time managemant. 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.