Author: pavel
Date: 02:04:42 10/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 04:16:18, Mike S. wrote:
>On October 08, 2000 at 18:52:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On October 08, 2000 at 09:28:44, Mike S. wrote:
>>>Should programs be able, or be allowed, to move in *zero* seconds of thinking
>>>time?
>>
>>how about posting this in the mailbox of ICS admins instead of
>>asking whether we want our programs to move fast, logically
>>we want our programs to move as fast as possible. if timestamp only
>>counts in 1/10 of a second, logically a program can move faster as that,
>>so then it moves in 0 seconds. Logical. End of discussion.
>>
>>(...)
>>Anyway i know your next post is about why programs are allowed to search
>>so deep within a second (like several plies) where you make pure blunders,
>>so that randomness should be added.
>>
>>Is it?
>
>Not at all. I wasn't talking about ICS play mainly (in fact, I hardly know what
>timestamp is). What I have in mind, is the normal user situation ("offline"),
>where he plays blitz games using a mouse, or even a sensor board. In the seldom
>cases when he reaches a "dead draw" position at the end of a game, he probably
>cannot agree a draw - because the program refuses to accept, and he must loose
>on time because the program can play 10 or more moves in 1 or 2 seconds.
>
>Of course, anybody can choose a time control with increment. But I think it is
>desireable, to have fair conditions under time controls without increment too.
>
>As I mentioned in another posting, I'm not playing blitz myself, and I have
>always tried to express my opinion that playing computer opponents is generally
>*not* unfair in any way. But I thought this zero, or nearly zero, thinking time
>is an exception, chess programmers might want to think about and improve. I may
>be wrong.
>
>This is not meant to keep a program optimally competitive for fast bitz games on
>ICS, but more to create user friendly conditions for your (future) customers. I
>could imagine to include such a minimum thinking time in a "etiquette" setting,
>which would be applied if the opponent is human, and could be switched off is
>desired.
>
>Regards,
>M.Scheidl
perhaps a better suggestion is to make the program understand drawn position
well and accepts draw. So that in case of dead draw postions instead of
contiuing the game, either the programs accecpts your draw offer or offers you a
draw, I know few programs who understands drawn position relatively better than
the rest; gandalf and crafty are the names i can remember right now.
Pavel
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.