Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:04:55 10/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2000 at 06:00:05, Graham Laight wrote: >On October 13, 2000 at 03:49:07, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I think that the sides should have more time in computer-human games. >> >>Some history: >> >>The first event with clocks was the match between hurvith and levental from >>1853(I am not sure how to write the names). >>The players had 20 minutes for every move and for every 10 additional minutes >>they had to pay 10 shillings. >>If after an hour the player did not play a move the result was a technical loss. >>In game 30 of the match levental payed twice only to pospone the game and in >>home analysis he found a way to save his position. >>It did not help him to save the match because in the next game he lost. >> >>Some years later (I read that in 186x) a clock was used when the time control >>was 2 hours/24 moves. >> >>I think that it will be interesting to see humans play at this time control >>against computers(Humans will have the same rights as in regular games and they >>should not have the right to use notes or to use books to help them). >> >>Do you think that humans can get better result against computers at this time >>control relative to 2 hours/40 moves?(I am not sure if the principle that says >>that humans are better at slower time control continues to hold because >>computers has also advantages(computers do not get tired and they do not forget) >> >>I know that this time control is not attractive for sponsors and it is sad that >>most of the best players of today are interested only in money. >> >>The players of the past prefered better games so they decided about 2 hours/24 >>moves. >> >>Uri > >Unfortunately, I think 2 hrs/24 moves would be too slow. People are much busier >now than they were then. That's why Charles Dickens, with his golden rule of >"never use one word when ten words will do" was so popular then. > >Also, look at the nature of 19th century games - all blood and thunder! Hardly a >move made without attacking something or taking something. The wonderful style >of the games (and I know of people other than myself who like to look at them) >made up for the slow pace. > >My opinion is that using this time control would not have much effect on the >results - though what effect it did have would certainly benefit the humans. >Generally, the slower the games, the better the humans do. > >While on the subject of time, may I request all programmers allow us to set more >time for ourselves than the computers right from the start. I like to allow the >computer 1 minute, and myself 25 minutes. In my version of CS-Tal (an early >version), you cannot set imbalanced time until some moves have been made! > >-g in 19th century it was socially forbidden to not accept a sacrafice of your opponent. Not accepting a sacrafice was seen as not polite behaviour. My club, (royal) chess club Utrecht, founded 5 october 1886, sure has seen many of that games... ...as secretary i tried to figure out the archives a bit, and some time ago in the national library a collectors book appeared with many cool pictures and games from the start of this century. Also in those times it was most usual to start the game with e4 and e5, again limiting the branching factor. There were definitely pretty soon chess clocks. Some clocks which i see now as unrepairable must be from before WW2. On the other hand there are now also DGT clocks plenty of them which are the opposite of the real old clocks where you have to push against a wooden stick (not push down but a completely idiotic system). Those real old clocks still work cool. DGTs are pretty tough too again, but all the staunton clocks from the past 20 years go broke en masse. clocks from those days were real good!
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.