Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:53:27 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 1998 at 11:05:59, Don Dailey wrote:
>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
I strongly agree with you Don. I don't want to make the expenses and the effort
to come in Boston just to participate in a small lottery.
I know some programmers think their program is better at longer time controls,
but I would say that faster games are good even for them.
What is the best?
1) Finish at a very low rank because your program was unlucky in only one game,
or
2) Finish at a medium rank because your program plays better when it has more
time?
Today's computer are 2 times faster than last year, and 4 times faster than 3
years ago. If you would have accepted to play 40 moves in 2 hours last year, or
40 moves in 4 hours 3 years ago, why would you refuse to play 40 moves in 1 hour
this year?
And how much ELO points does your program loose by playing faster? 10 points, 20
points? Isn't this negligible when compared to the random noise generated by a
small number of rounds?
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.