Author: Don Dailey
Date: 08:05:59 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 1998 at 18:46:11, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >On July 13, 1998 at 14:45:05, Don Dailey wrote: > >[many things cut...] > >>Having played a couple times in the Dutch computer chess >>championships I can say that I am very favorable to shorter time >>controls for computers. This also got strong support at the >>last world championship. 40/2 is probably very close to ideal >>for human performance, it's about the longest time control a >>person can comfortably deal with in a single session and still >>maintain close to optimal performance. But there is no magic >>time control for computers. I see no reason in principle that >>computers must match the same conditions. In fact, based on >>my Dutch experiences and others too, I find something faster to >>be highly desirable, it's less fatiguing, more interesting to >>spectators and easy to operate with full attention. The Dutch >>was Game in 90 minutes and that was NOT too fast, plenty of time >>to talk relax and still play high quality games. I think this >>would be a very positive improvement to the format and of course >>it greatly facilitates playing more rounds without getting all >>of us tired and cranky. > >I think the whole game palyed in x minutes is not a good think for a chess game >because more the game goes and more the moves are played rapidly... >Don't think that time controls like : 40Moves/90 min + 20Moves/30 min, then if >the game is not finished stop it there and play all the unfinished games a day >that is reserved for that ... So it's possible to play 2 games/day... > >Best regards ... I'm mainly making an argument for faster time controls. I like the "fischer clock" arrangement personally, something like game in 60, with 30 seconds added per move or something similar. - Don
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.