Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 11:04:37 04/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2002 at 13:42:54, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >About the first statement could you explain why SSDF based their ELO estimates >in 40/2h and not in blitz ? Probably due to the respect and tradition about STC and a sense of aestethics. The hardware/TC duality makes the idea of STC ingraved in stone tablets seem less obvious. That is beside the point in the context of this match. The computer programs wouldn't search much deeper or add numerous extra ELO points by a tripling or even quadrupling of the TC used. The growth of the tree, as mentioned by Sune, would prevent that. As for the advantage for humans over programs with increased time, I recommend the explanation by Daniel Clausen (Sargon). A very clear exposition of the tactical/positional ramifications. >And about the second it's part of human physiology and doesn't need any further >explanation, I hope. That's a rather dubious answer. Humans are fully capable of playing long games if the schedule includes occasional rest days for recharging. Regards, Mogens
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.