Author: James Robertson
Date: 20:42:35 05/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2000 at 20:59:23, Brian Richardson wrote: >My first choice would be standard time games, but shorter than 75 10. >Second choice would be blitz. > >I would not favor overnight games at any time control. Tinker's first >tournament was the ICC Winter one during late Jan/early Feb. There was a >definite need to manually monitor each game. More often than not, if Tinker did >not have any problems, then its opponent did. Even with no "problems", changes >(hopefully improvements in eval or time usage) were easier to spot while >watching actual play (vs logs). I agree. In the winter tournament, there were about 4 to 10 disconnects per round. Problems like this would wreck an overnighter. > >Many many bugs have been fixed since then, and Tinker now plays hundreds of >games for days at a time on ICC. However, I am sure there are several other >even newer (and still relatively unstable) programs that would be attracted to a >tournament (especially if the roster is broad enough that there are a reasonable >number of "non-heavy weight" programs). > >I also personally enjoy watching the games. Accordingly, I would like to see >something close to a repeat of the Winter tournament (although 2 games per >opponent as both black and white sounds like a good idea, even if it means >somewhat shorter time controls). I agree here too. The main reason (for me) to play these tournaments is to watch the games. If I want test results, I can do that on my own computer. But to watch a long game and chat with other programmers is what a tournament like this is all about. My opinion about the time control: at least 45 10, please. James
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.