Author: Oliver Roese
Date: 08:08:28 10/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 10:12:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 09, 2000 at 02:08:38, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On October 08, 2000 at 23:09:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 08, 2000 at 13:55:12, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On October 08, 2000 at 13:41:07, Oliver Roese wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 08, 2000 at 13:06:05, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 08, 2000 at 12:20:43, Oliver Roese 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don't think so (except when the pondering prepared for an opponent's move >>>>>>>>which is actually played), but I'd like to hear what others, especially blitz >>>>>>>>players or users who have programs play blitz/lightning at servers, think about >>>>>>>>this. Is it fair, to make series of moves in zero seconds? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Probably, long sequences of very low quality moves in engine matches could be >>>>>>>>avoided also, by forcing a minimum of 1 second (i.e. as a common standard in >>>>>>>>computer chess programs). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>>M.Scheidl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In opening and (very late) endgame computers act (almost) optimally. >>>>>>>So surely nobody could say a competition in this case is "fair". >>>>>>>Maybe "interesting" oder "challenging" for someone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I tried to match some computer-accounts on fics with a 2-12 timecontrol. >>>>>>>But almost all dont allow that (surprise, surprise;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Oliver >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that they will allow standard 2-15 or 20-20 time control when you have >>>>>>better chances so I do not understand why do you need 2-12 time control unless >>>>>>the target is to increase your blitz rating. >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not like the fact that the players care about rating and I think they >>>>>>should care only about the game they play and not about rating when it is clear >>>>>>that the rating is clearly distorted(the fact that people can inflate their >>>>>>rating prove that the rating is distorted). >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>Sorry, but i have to take that as insulting, since you say i am acting not as a >>>>>sportsman. I hope you regret your remark soon, so that we can continue to talk >>>>>about computerchess, thank you. >>>>> >>>>>Oliver >>>> >>>>I apologize if I insulted you. >>>> >>>>I only wanted to say that 2 12 games against computers inflate the rating of >>>>humans and avoiding 2 12 games against humans inflate the rating of computers. >>>> >>>>I wanted to say also that I do not like the fact that people can increase their >>>>rating by these means. >>>> >>>>I think that if you are not interested in rating(I think they are meaningless >>>>because of the distorted system) you can play standard time control games >>>>against computers that are slightly slower than the 2 12 time control. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>I disagree here. 2 12 is _not_ blitz chess by any measure of the game I have >>>been playing for 40 years. 5 minute chess is blitz. I have a pretty tight >>>formula for crafty to make blitz blitz. and standard standard. IM's play >>>crafty all the time at 30 30 or whatever. This guy is more than welcome to >>>do that. >>> >>>The most frequent reason for wanting to play a computer at 2 12 blitz is to >>>cheat by using another program. 5 3 is doable by cheaters, but it is harder. >>>but to play crafty, if someone wants a 12 sec increment, why not 10 12? Oh, >>>that wouldn't affect their blitz rating... >> >>When I played regularly on the ICS (!), the normal blitz time control was 2 12. >>I'm no longer active on any chess servers, and while I realise that what is >>considered to be the normal time control has sped up over the years, I don't >>think that offering a computer a match at 2 12 is a particular indication of >>wanting to cheat. It sounds to me like it's an indication of wanting to have >>enough time to (try to :-) have a good game without going really long. With >>some time to think, you might be able to do something clever like build up a >>long-range attack, instead of just getting hammered in a really quick game. >> > >I am not sure about why 2 12 is wanted. If you can play 2 12, why not 6 14 >and move it to standard, which almost _any_ computer will play on the servers. >How different is 2 12 and 6 14? That is the point I don't understand. > If you dont understand something about me, feel free to ask me. 2 12 was only a suggestion. >I don't consider 2 12 blitz. Nor does most of the 'strong' players I watch. >Most GM players play more 3 0 and 5 0 than any other time control. Although >most are also wise enough to play 5 3 vs the computer to avoid time scrambles >that they always lose. > I understand your difficulty. There is an anomaly in fics, considering 2 12 as blitz, which it is effectively not is. I dont enforce you, to play under conditions you dont like. Just tell me, what you want. > > > >>To me, "standard" was always a serious rating -- you know, 60+ minutes per >>player per game. Playing a computer 10 12 as standard sure doesn't fit my idea >>of serious, and I doubt you'd want crafty to be tied up for a couple of hours at >>a time. >> >>Dave > > >Crafty will play 30 30 which is certainly going to be at least one hour per side >per game. It has even played 60 60 in the past, but I cut that by 1/2 to avoid >games that would take 5-6 hours. Oliver
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.