Author: Jason Williamson
Date: 04:21:35 10/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
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. One reason why 2 12 was standard in the olden days of ICS was it was pre timestamp/timeseal. So lag was a major factor in the games. >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. > >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
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.