Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 06:17:39 08/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 1998 at 23:40:08, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>I am afraid that it may come to that or either not getting enough Rebel 10 >>>operators. Operators are pissed off that if they leave their machines they >>>have to come back at a certain time to get the Rebel move. If it was a large >>>change I could understand Ed's reluctance but surely changing the maximum >>>time allowed per single analysis would not involve much work. > >You never learn KK, do you? > > >>On the other hand, to be fair to Ed, it may be a lot more work than we might >>think. Suppose (for instance) his program is written in Assembly language and >>the data type for time is a two byte integer. It might have dozens of public >>references, throughout the code. That would only be good for about 9 hrs >>worth >>of wait time, and in Assembly language, it might be somewhat tricky to update >>it, compared to a HLL. > >>So what seems like a two minute fix in C++ could be a two week fix in Assembly >>language [depending upon lots of factors, of course]. Assembly code also >>tends >>to be a lot larger, and you might need 100K lines to accomplish the same thing >>as 10K lines of C++. > >>In short, the problem might be much larger than we might think. > >>Of course, it would be very nice to be able to specify up to 24 hours (or >>more) of analysis time. Maybe all the competitors will put a little check box >>comparision thing into the magazines and drive him to fix it. ;-) > >:-) > >1-2 months ago in private email I told KK that we consider his request to >extend the "fixed time-level" from MM:SS to HH:MM:SS and that the change >already was present on our "todo" list for Rebel10. In that respect we like >to extend the "average time-level" as well to HH:MM:SS format. I also told >KK these changes do not have a high priority. > >I will pass the request to Rob (who has to program it) but I already fear the >answer as he don't like to be pressured and certainly not in public.. :-) > >- Ed - Ed it is not my intention to embarass you in public but the email that you sent me did NOT mention anything except that the change did not have a high priority. You never mentioned the following to me "fixed time-level" from MM:SS to HH:MM:SS and that the change already was present on our "todo" list for Rebel10. In that respect we like to extend the "average time-level" as well to HH:MM:SS format" The above never showed up: Here is the complete text of Ed's email to me. "Hi Alan, >I read your update page. The new features look good as always >but will Rebel 10 have a longer fixed >time control than 59:59 ? Pity the poor Rebel operators in the KK Kup who >have to >stand by their machines or else have alarm clocks to tell them when Rebel >has thought their 5 hour ( or whatever it is) time handicap on their >machine. Shouldn’t be much problem to lengthen the maximum fixed time >control. Maybe we will, but remember Rebel isn’t written for the KK cup. Ed" -- Komputer Korner
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.