Author: James T. Walker
Date: 16:56:42 12/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2000 at 13:39:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 19, 2000 at 13:13:27, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On December 19, 2000 at 12:19:13, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On December 19, 2000 at 06:52:08, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>>>It's not an especially fast program, around 160Knps on my Athlon, but quite >>>>selective or so it seems. That could be a problem at faster timecontrols. >>> >>> >>> >>>Why? Can you explain your reasonning? >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>No, I don't think I can, given that I'm not sufficiently knowledgable about the >>program. Maybe the evaluation leaves it vulnerable to tactics at shorter time >>controls, I don't know. >> >>Mogens. > > > >As far as I know, the speed (in term of NPS) of a program is not an indicator of >its favorite time control. For example, Hiarcs is a very slow program, but it >performs extremely well at very fast time controls. It is the opposite for >CSTal. > >The level of selectivity is not a good indicator either. The King and Hiarcs are >very selective (they have to, as they are also very slow in NPS), and as I >pointed out, Hiarcs is very good at blitz. I don't know if the King shows any >preference for a given time control. > >Tiger is a very selective program, and it does not favor a time control over >another one. > >I would add that the presumed level of "knowledge" of a program does not >indicate either the time control it will excel in. Once again, Hiarcs is >supposed to have a lot of knowledge, and once again it performs the best at >blitz. Which is not to say that it is bad a long time controls. > >And finally over the years I have noticed that some programs have a clear >preference for fast time controls (Genius, Hiarcs...), but nobody has ever been >able to show that a program had a preference for long (or very long) time >controls. People say they have the impression that program X plays better at >long time controls, but it is never proven by further testings. > > > > Christophe Hello Christophe, I think a better way to view this phenom is to look at it the other way around. Most all programs play well given enough time. Some programs do not play very well when not given enough time. I think Shredder is one of these. And if you want I think it can be proven very simply. If the SSDF test Shredder 5 at 40/2 it will come up with a rating vs other programs at that "long" time control. Now you can play Shredder at G/5 minutes and I'm sure you will see it does not compare so well. This gives way the the thought that Shredder gains more at longer time controls. Your Tiger's of course compare favorably at any speed. Jim
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.