Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:46:22 10/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 2002 at 12:11:26, Uri Blass wrote: Ok so you are saying now that 2 minutes a move is giving a better play than 3 minutes a move? If so why aren't all GMs beating computers at 1 minute whole game? I hope you see the problem? >On October 01, 2002 at 08:43:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On September 30, 2002 at 12:28:29, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On September 30, 2002 at 11:55:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 29, 2002 at 23:55:57, Rick Terry wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 29, 2002 at 23:16:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 29, 2002 at 16:33:50, Rick Terry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Is the time control in this Match comparable to 40/2 or to the Current Fide >>>>>>>Standard time control? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Not even close... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't think the time control would have made a difference in the results, >>>>>Larry simply pushed too hard in several of the games, where he should have taken >>>>>the draw. >>>> >>>> >>>>I simply didn't like the time control. It was basically "two minutes a >>>>move, period" whichi is not too fast, but it is _way_ different for a GM to >>>>play that way. IE if you watch a GM play, he plays a bunch of moves almost >>>>instantly, but at some point will go into a "deep think" and burn a lot of >>>>time mapping out long-term strategy. This time control prevented that, >>>>which makes it less appealing. >>> >>>only in part of the cases. >>>If the GM plays relatively fast in the opening then he has time for deep think >>>later. >>> >>>Uri >> >>This is complete nonsense what you state. >>I'm very used to 40 in 2. GMs even more. The bulk of the time >>you use is the first part of the game, NOT the second half as you >>indicate. > >It depends on the game. >There are cases at GM level when the first 20 moves are known theory >so the GM can use less than 1 minute for them. > > >> >>Here is what happens for example in what i found was an easy game, >>it was played last saturday: >> >>starting with 2:00 both players. a minus sign means no time used >>for that move or less than 1 minute. >> >>white: Vincent Diepeveen (2291, FM) >>black: Jeroen Piket (2646, GM) >> >>1.e4 , c5 -,- >>2.nf3,nc6 -,- >>3.d4,cd4 -,- >>4.nd4,nf6 -,- >>5.nc3,e5 -,- >>6.ndb5,h6 -,1:58 >>7.Be3,d6 1:47 , 1:42 >>8.Nd5,Nd5 1:44 , 1:40 (piket was talking elsewhere in the room and didn't >> hurry to get back) >>9.ed,Ne7 -,- >>10.c3,Nf3 -,- >>11.Bxa7,Bd7 1:41,1:39 >>12.a4,Be7 1:30,1:38 >>13.a5,O-O 1:27,1:37 >>14.Bb6,Qc8 -,1:24 >>15.Be2,Bd8 1:10,1:01 >>16.Bd8(D),Qd8 1:07,- >>17.b4,Qg5 1:06,0:58 >>18.g3,e4 1:01,0:40 >>19.O-O,Rac8 0:53,0:34 >>20.Ra3,e3 0:42,0:29 >>21.f4,Qg6 0:38,0:28 >>22.Nd4,Ng3 0:33,0:18.50 >>23.hg,Qg3 -,- >>24.kh1,qh3 -,- >>25.Kg1,Qg3 -,- >>26.Kh1, - >>1/2-1/2 >> >>and after some thoughts whether he could still win >>somehow he looked at me and it was a draw. >> >>so according to 2 minutes a move GM Piket would have forfeited at move >>7 already. > >I am sure that in that case he was not using the same time for move 7. > > Also add to that that you forget the most important aspect >>of time management. >> >>Suppose my opponent has only 1 minute left and after his move he has 3 >>minutes left. Each move 2 minutes added. >> >>It means that if i do a very unclear move now that he'll forfeit or make >>a blunder. He HAS to decide within 3 minutes. >> >>I can give you some statistics here. >> >>I have personally a 100% score in unclear positions (even with pawns >>less) against opponents with just 5 minutes left and who needed to make >>10 moves within that time. > >having 5 minutes to make the last 10 moves is a lot worse than having >2 minutes per move. > >I believe that a lot of players do the mistake of illogical time management by >getting to a big time trouble and I expect the increasment to help them to use >time better. > >I think that having less than 1 minute per move in unclear position is an >evidence for a bad time management. > >A player should not let it to happen. >It is easier to say it than to do it and there are players who fail to do it >again and again. > >I believe that time control of 2 minutes per game+2 minutes per move could be >better for these players. >> >>Now imagine they have to do 5 very difficult moves in a row each move >>just 2 minutes! >> >>No one makes it. The level of the games goes down hundreds of points, >>becuase *no one* is going, unless it's a fool, to take the risk of >>just having a few minutes left. > >> >>With 40 in 2 you have 2 hours. That's already hard enough in some cases. >> >>But time management at that level is a LOT easier than time management >>in 2 minutes added each move or 40 60. > >No >I think that time management is easier in 2+2. >I think that part of the players play better at 2+2 than 120/40 and in another >part of the cases it is the opposite but I do not think that there is a big >difference in the level of play. > >If you know theory then it may be a good idea to go for long theoretical >lines against programs in that case. > >Uri
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.