Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 12:35:15 04/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2000 at 13:53:17, Dann Corbit wrote: >On April 25, 2000 at 07:11:28, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >[snip] >>I guess you might describe blitz as no-chess or something different than "real" >>(?) chess when people play, but the shortcomings of people at blitz don’t apply >>to programs or they apply to a much lesser extent, and that’s why human players >>have much better chances at slower time controls when playing computers. >> >>In my opinion, Christophe is making an interesting and coherent point, as he >>usually does, about the value of blitz games and the relative harm of having >>pondering on/off, and the games of Chessfun are very interesting in this regard, >>I think. Next step would be questioning the alleged difference when programs >>play against other programs or against people, another old "legend" >>(Christophe’s terminology) of computer chess. > >Except for time to move, the rules of blitz are obviously the same as slower >chess. But look at blitz games. Full of blunders and gaffes. It's ugly chess >at its worst. Blitz today is like 40:2 games in the times of 486/33, and nobody claimed that these games were not worth a penny. In few years from now, our slow games will become blitz. Then, if testing at 40:2 was alright some years ago, why should blitz be despicable and worthless today on much faster machines? Enrique >I despise blitz. But others enjoy it. I see no reason for them not to have >fun. But for me, it is like an afternoon watching two patzers who barely know >the rules verses watching two GM's play. >[snip]
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.