Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 15:56:41 04/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2002 at 17:31:40, Chessfun wrote: >In >fact I find it funny how you can come to any opinion after one game. :-))) chessfun :-)) i see that for you it is fun. the idea to come to information is to watch the game, the moves, the output of the computers: that is: how is the position the programs left when out of book. how do they evaluate the position relative to your own judgement. you can also analyse the position with 3rd engines while watching it. e.g. you can try out the main lines of the 2 machines fighting and watch where it leads you. you can watch out the TIME the machines take for computation. you can observe the fail high or fail low behaviour. you can observe the NPS in relationship to position and game-stage, you can relate the engine X versus engine X-1 (in this case relate hiarcs8 to hiacrs7 on a 3rd machine) to find out about the difference. ... ALL this can be done live during the game. while you watch the 40/120 game. i doubt that you can ever get so much information out of your lightning games. believe me, you can get much information out of ONE game. especially when you are used to watch computers and main lines and scores for more than 20 years. i can read st.exupery or schopenhauer or nietzsche while watching the programs, and would get more information out of one game than you would get out of your lightning games. but everybody is used to different methods. i let you yours. you can let me mine. but its silly to call ONE game less significant than 100 lightning games, only because you don't see although having eyes and ears open.
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.