Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:06:02 09/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2000 at 16:41:00, Dann Corbit wrote: in the average weekend tournament one plays 7 games in 1 weekend at 2 hours a game. The normal FIDE level is at least that, but usual 40 in 2 then 30 all or something. The level at wmcc was quite cool 60 in 2 then 30 all. Now at not a single ics i know there is this problem. Now at cct we saw that there was only one who had to hand operate a game. That was me. I had hardware problems. I had to hand operate 1 game with DIEP and i feel i lost a lot of time to it. I lost the game if i remember well also. operating at a remote computer is no big fun. the alternative was running at a slow 450PII and needing to switch the computer each few seconds (1 monitor with switchview). Now i have a fast dual 800Mhz PIII which is compared to a PII450 about 1600Mhz PIII which is also nearly 20% faster as a PII for each Mhz, also 1 processor is not doing OS jobs too much so in fact you have relatively seen more slices of system time at a dual anyway, so practical it's 2 Ghz PII for me at times of say 1.5 minutes a move, except for the first move as hashtable isn't filled then yet which takes care it takes some time before both processors get efficiently searching the trees thereby not losing too much system time. So for me a relative fast level might be a huge advantage. Nevertheless i plead for a slow level, the rest is never gonna get taken serious in this world. To allow hand operated people or those who must hand operate in case of error it's easy to add some increment. 75 10 is a good compromise. You don't need to do a thing during a tournament. You can get chinese, eat it completely, then watch the news then get back and it's still playing. But if you have connection problems then a fast level is not fair simply. >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.