Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:41:00 09/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2000 at 16:29:15, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On September 04, 2000 at 15:53:53, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>I'm interested in seeing quality chess. It the contest is held at "near blitz" >>levels, it certainly won't hold any interest for me. > >You will see 'quality chess', whatever that is exactly. Most programs can play >very well at a 30 10 time control. Don't forget, this years G/30 is equivalent >to G/60 1.5 years ago (assuming Moores Law). I like postal time control best. Then 40/2. To me, G/60 is the bare minimum for "quality chess." The faster you play, the more mistakes the programs make. There is something of a diminishing return for longer time controls, since you won't get many more plies by allowing even postal time controls. But every added second makes the programs play better. >There is nothing special about a time control of G/60 or 40/2hr. These are just >time controls that humans like, nothing more nothing less. The thing that is special about them is that it allows the best possible choice of moves in a tolerable time frame. The only change in my definition to yours is the values of 'tolerable' and 'quality.' Some people don't want chess to take a a long time. Some people might be satisfied with the quality of lightning chess. Of course, I am in the vast minority as to what sort of chess people enjoy. It never ceases to amaze me how many people prefer the really fast games like blitz. If you look for 40/2 games on FICS or ICC or whatever, they will be very few and very far between. And so I do realize that most of mankind thinks my notion is a great waste of time. >If quality is so important, perhaps we should play G/300, or G/1000 ?? Of >course we don't, because the tournament would take too long. So G/60 or 40/2hr >are just trade-offs between the amount of 'quality' and convenience, just as 30 >10 is. Actually, I would not mind seeing a postal time control tournament. I even participated in the KKUP2. I suppose that one move per week would be too slow, even for me. But one move per day suits me very nicely. >> >>But if it is just for the authors to have fun and chat and whatever as some kind >>of social engagement, I don't see anything wrong with that. > >Thats not the ONLY point of CCT, but its certainly one of the points of it. >It is also a competitive event, make no mistake about that we'll all be out for >blood! I suppose there is competition at every level, even game in one second. And perhaps most people would be annoyed by slowing the games down. I was just voicing my opinion that slower games are more interesting to _me_.
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.