Author: Harald Faber
Date: 11:48:51 04/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2002 at 12:07:23, Peter Berger wrote: >On April 29, 2002 at 11:43:31, Harald Faber wrote: > >>Not to speak from the difference it makes when you play 40/120 on 2x500MHz >>and 40/60 on 2x 1GHz... >> > >Again this argument. It comes up again and again , and again I would love to see >just one explanation why this should be the case. It is the time management. >I agree there might be some minor difference due to hardware architecture >between the two experiments ( certainly <<5%). > >But this aside both experiments described above ( say on a PIII1000 and a >PIII500) should show _exactly_ the same results. > >Also I expect time management to behave exactly equivalent from all >computerchess games and engines I have seen so far. > >Could you explain why you think there is a difference between 40/120 on 2x500Mhz >to 40/60 on 2x1Ghz?? Or can you even provide some data to support it? > >Peter 1. The time management is different if you play blitz or 40/120. 2. The only data I have got is that Shredder did and maybe still does much worse in g/180 than in 40/120+60 although all in all this is almost the same time control. If the results would be almost identical, you are right. My experience showed me s.th. different. I do not have the machines to prove that, sorry. And there will be no proof until someone does the test.
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.