Author: KarinsDad
Date: 14:51:20 04/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2000 at 15:30:55, blass uri wrote: [snip] > >I know that a long time ago there was no clock in the game and when people >started to use the chess clock the time control in tournament was not x >hours/game but something like 2 hours/40 moves+2 hours/40 moves+2 hours/40 >moves+.... Hmmmmm. I hadn't heard this. If you have any reference or historical material on this, please let me know. > >The decision to use 2 hours/40 moves+1 hour/game is new. > >I heard the reason for it is the fact that the game is not exactly games of >humans when humans can use computers to help them in adjourned games and having >a better program and a faster computer is an advantage. > >I do not understand this reason because in the past humans could use friends to >help them in adjourned games and having better friends was an advantage. Funny you should say that. I have always disliked adjourned games as well since it was no longer man vs. man, but man supported by team vs. man supported by team. I especially do not like adjourned games now that computers can be used. And I can understand the difference between now and then. Then, even a team of GMs could miss a tactic which the other team of GMs could see. Now, as long as you have a program or two on the team, there are fewer tactical mistakes (within 14 ply or so) that will not get caught. Of course to me, it always seemed stupid to have two people play a game for 55 moves and then to have two teams of experts review the game and help decide it's outcome. It takes away the spirit of one man vs. one man. ><snipped> >>But, the Fischer time controls suddenly come along and really change things. > >It does not changes things because 2 hours/40 +2 hours/40+2 hours/40+... >was a long time ago a common kind of time control. > > >>Now, a certain style of play is rewarded (the person who plays slowly and well) >>whereas other styles of play are actually penalized (the person who plays >>quickly and well) since some of that person's competition was given a reward >>which did not necessarily benefit him/her. > >playing quickly and well get rewarded because there are blitz tournaments and GM >win money prizes based on their result in 5 minutes/game. > >Uri Yes, this WAS true (at least truer). But anymore, the games tend to be G5+5 or somesuch, not G5. So, again, the slower player is rewarded. The faster player is not. 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.