Author: martin fierz
Date: 16:49:28 10/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2002 at 18:27:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On October 10, 2002 at 18:10:31, martin fierz wrote: > >>i don't know what you are talking about. "blitzing" your opponent is standard >>practice in human chess. i did it. it has been done to me. sometimes it works, >>sometimes not. there is nothing unfair in it. >> >>aloha >> martin > >Ok, because it's you: please do not read me as if I would criticise Ed. What I >was trying to say was that such nonsense could not succeed. Because bliting in a >non-blitzing situation can't disturb a human GM! If someone plays with less >thinking, then it's his problem and a GM would never get nervous. Please re-read >what Ed wrote about his technique... i did. being "blitzed" is disturbing, whether you are a weak or a strong player - even a GM is disturbed by it, as the results of ed show. you write it's nonsense - i disagree: it is clear that the faster a game gets, the less chance a human has against the computer. disciplined chess players will think about the game they are playing while their opponent is to move. if you decide to have rebel play e.g. 40 moves in 1 hour, what effectively happens is that the GM gets 3 hours for 40 moves instead of 4, while the computer gets 1 hour instead of 2, so you reduce your thinking time by 50% and the GM's by 25%. if you do this right (i.e. when using pondering, always move instantly if you have a ponder hit), you probably get a better percentage than 25%. and so you have succeeded in a) getting to a shorter time control at a relatively low price, and b) in psyching your human opponent. even without b) this might well be worthwhile! aloha martin >And you are thinking that operators could do _everything_? Serious? > >Rolf Tueschen
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.