Author: fca
Date: 02:10:58 08/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
Komputer Korner wrote: >Ed Schröder wrote: >>>KK had written earlier: >>>>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? This was written by Ed *after* Danniel had posted an absolutely correct statement (had he not posted it, I would have posted much the same thing) that what is a small job to high-levellers can be an *absolute nightmare* to assembly language programmers. I speak as a 6502/Z80/68000/80x86 assembly language programmer. And no one knows the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule better than low levellers. What may have ranked a bit with Ed, KK, was yout assertion that it "surely... would not involve much work". Danniel's correction of this was followed by the "You never learn KK". >>:-) Confirming Ed's agreement with Danniel. >>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. >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" KK, I'm wholly impartial in this. Clearly both: 1. It is true Ed did not _explicitly_ say that it was on the todo with low priority. 2. It is equally true that I would have read the "Maybe we will, but remember..." as suggesting it was on a todo list with low priority. All things on todo lists do not usually get done for the next version, especially for low levellers... Ed was not disputing either in the email or here that the feature would be a nice one. Ed, as said elsewhere on CCC, I would *really* like it as well and 100% endorse KK's view. Also, when analysing for many hours, I want to see HH:MM:SS time reached for the last "best so far" analysis line, and not just the MM:SS and have to guess the HH. This is os I can predict (with experience of branching factors etc.) when Rebel will complete its current ply search. Screen space may be an issue, I realise. Perhaps dropping font size is a way? I'd also love to see deeper analysis threads - annoying when Rebel is searching to upto say +40 ply but only displaying +7ply - even +9 would be a nice tweak. I am looking forward to R10 in any event. Kind regards fca
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.