Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 23:42:56 07/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2000 at 01:46:14, Will Singleton wrote: >On July 12, 2000 at 23:14:36, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>On July 12, 2000 at 13:56:15, Will Singleton wrote: >> >>>On July 12, 2000 at 04:35:36, Jason Williamson wrote: >>> >>>>On July 12, 2000 at 01:33:28, Will Singleton wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 12, 2000 at 01:06:37, Jason Williamson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>So when is the next one due? >>>>> >>>>>It will happen when someone steps up to organize it. How about you? >>>>Actually I would be willing to do that. >>> >>>Great. I suggest October, game/60, and 4 rounds-per-day over two weekends for a >>>total of 16 rounds. You might contact Tux on ICC (he handled the last one) to >>>get started up. I know some folks have made significant improvements to their >>>programs, so I think there is interest. >>> >>>Will >> >> >>Hi Will, >> >>October sounds good to me, but four G/60s in one day is a lot. When you account >>for the inevitable delay between rounds, you're looking at 9 hours of chess. >>Spread that out over a dozen time zones and some people are going to be >>seriously inconvenienced. >> >>I'd suggest two or three G/60s per day, but with a small time increment - maybe >>5 seconds. Maybe we could alternate, with 3 rounds on Saturdays and 2 rounds on >>Sundays so we aren't all zombies at work on Monday morning. :) >> >>--Peter > >I don't mind being a zombie. We can all stand a little inconvenience for the >sake of more rounds. But perhaps 3 rounds/day would be manageable. > >I like the idea of G/60, without increment. There should be an element of >time-management, which is, after all, a part of chess. I have to say that I really hate zero increment time controls. Chess clocks were introduced to keep the game moving at a reasonable pace, not to provide entertainment for the spectators with a random blitz finale. Adding a small increment ensures that the contest remains mainly one of chess skill. I would hate to see a really delicate endgame butchered because the final 40 moves were played in 15 seconds. Nobody learns anything about chess from these games. I *really* would hate to see a game lost because a manual operator couldn't move his mouse quickly enough. Some programs don't have timestamp, either. I believe you played without it until fairly recently. > And for chess >programmers, it affords another dimension in which to be creative. A little bit >of the gamble, and some excitement towards the end. > >Will Watching a quality game is exciting enough for me. --Peter P.S. I doubt anybody is reading this thread, Will. We're buried too deep below the Kramnik-Deep Junior stuff... :(
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.