Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 05:35:16 02/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2001 at 16:13:25, Chessfun wrote: >Thanks to you both for these posts. >I know in the past Christophe has written his opinions on why programs should >equally perform well at blitz as at tourney times and my opinions were somewhat >the same. Reading both these give me a clearer idea of reasons why some perform >better at fast blitz. Concentrate on the ideas and thoughts presented by Ed Schröder (and Uri), because they're closer to reality and partially refutes the very simplistic overview made by Christophe. The general idea is somewhat correct, but there are several ways to achieve the same goal. So you can _choose_ to emphasize parameters like hardware, time and evaluation in a special way to reach that goal without being incompetent. Good standard results doesn't imply good blitz results and there are _no_ general conclusions to be made without detailed knowledge about the program in question. Neither is it obvious that a program, which plays at the "same" level despite time/hardware is a good one. I have a notion of unfulfilled potential when such programs are claimed to exist, no matter how good they are compared to the competition. I'm not sure why I wrote it here. Maybe as a warning not to take certain opinions too seriously. As with anything else, opinions are colored by the percieved infallible approach you use yourself. Something quite common in computer chess as winessed by the discussions here. Mogens.
This page took 0.01 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.