Author: stuart taylor
Date: 09:31:57 04/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2002 at 11:32:10, Harald Faber wrote: >On April 29, 2002 at 09:21:26, Chessfun wrote: > >>On April 29, 2002 at 05:08:15, Thorsten Czub wrote: >> >>>On April 29, 2002 at 03:29:15, Tanya Deborah wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Hi to All :) >>>> >>>>Somebody has test the super Fritz 7 engine against the new Hiarcs 8??? >>>> >>>>I can´t wait for this :-))) >>>> >>>>Please, post results here... >>>> >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>>Tanya Deborah. >>> >>>sorry tanya, >>>i have not many results so far, but >>>a game. >> >> >>"A game" and you post that header?. >>I would rather see 100 lightning games than one game which tells anyone >>absolutely nothing. >> >>Sarah. > >I prefer (at least) ONE game at tournament time control, g/120, 40/40 instead of >hundreds or thousands of bullet games. Well, in fact, I feel the same way, but I thought I was always in the minority. On the other hand, great programers like Chr. Theron seems to favour the multitude of games, even blitz (I don't know WHICH blitz), and, as far as computers themselves are concerned, some programs can play "instant" at a standard that is unimaginable to any human without quite alot of thinking time allowed. Simply, the whole concept of time is not the same for humans and computers. BUT, longer is (alot) better, even for computers, and as long as that remains true, my preference for those longer games makes Blitz a complete waste of exitement. If perfect chess can be acheived at 1000 Ghz and tournament timings, and you have a computer with 1,000,000 Ghz. then I would say, by all means test at a minute per game or less, and study those games no end, spending many many human hours per game. S.Taylor
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.