Author: Albert Silver
Date: 03:35:18 12/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2001 at 23:14:30, Christophe Theron wrote:
>On December 16, 2001 at 06:47:31, Harald Faber wrote:
>
>>On December 16, 2001 at 06:40:46, Sergei Smith wrote:
>>
>>>On December 16, 2001 at 06:07:40, Harald Faber wrote:
>>>
>>>>A horrible, desastrous result for Shredder 6: 1.5-8.5 vs. Fritz 7a is crushing.
>>>>(Game #11 ended draw)
>>>>I haven't found the time to take a closer look at the games.
>>>>
>>>>Currently Shredder 6 - Junior 7: 1.5-0.5
>>>>
>>>>Games etc. like always available at www.harald-faber.de
>>>
>>>Shredder may be stronger at longer time settings, at time settings of 1 move in
>>>3 minutes. I'd try those.
>>
>>Did you read the match conditions? I doubt that. I am testing 40/120+60.
>
>
>
>:) :) :)
>
>That's an automatic answer: when program X performs badly, the automatic answer
>is that you should have played at longer time controls.
So? It's a good answer. Persoanlly, I think the results mean nothing unless
using the time controls used in big tournaments. Obviously the perfect example
of this is the time control of 37 moves in 2.5 hours as used in Bled 1931.
Anything less is pointless. If that's no good and Shredder continues to lose,
then I suggest the time control used by Morphy and Paulsen in their encounter.
Shredder could never lose that. (It couldn't win it either, but that's beside
the point).
Albert
P.S. For any wondering, it is the basis of a famous true story. Both Morphy and
Paulsen were playing, and Paulsen was notoriously slow. Well after almost 3
hours (!!) Morphy was still waiting for his opponent to make a move and broke
decor by asking, "aren't you going to make a move?". Paulsen loked up and
replied, "Oh? Is it my turn to play?". Interestingly, when they introduced
clocks into tournament play (done in Paulsen's time), he had no trouble adapting
to it, and not only didn't lose on time, but continued to have remarkable
results.
>
>I know a lot of programs (actually all the ones that are not close enough to the
>top of the SSDF) that are supposed to play much stronger at longer time
>controls.
>
>One thing I don't understand: nobody ever complains the opposite. I mean: when
>was the last time you have heard "you should have played faster time controls"?
>
>
>
> Christophe
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.