Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: time note

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 08:40:00 10/28/02

Go up one level in this thread


On October 28, 2002 at 10:31:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On October 28, 2002 at 10:05:29, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On October 28, 2002 at 09:44:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>>On October 28, 2002 at 09:38:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>
>>>I hope you realize that i prefer a time control of 40 in 2.
>>>However, if you play blitz levels like 90 0, then you have
>>>consequences like this. If you asked me in advance, then
>>>i would not have told you to expect that i would get to
>>>move 187 at all in a computer-computer game which was
>>>hand operated.
>>>
>>>Both operators played like 50 moves extra with very little time
>>>on the clock.
>>>
>>>If you do not find it fair to win on time, then don't play 90 0
>>>is my viewpoint. I prefer 40 in 2 myself too. If you go 90 0,
>>>it is unpreventable that a number of games end in a time win.
>>
>>It is possible to prevent it if you do not play games manually.
>>
>>I see no reason to play games manually.
>>I see no reason not to play the games automatically in ICC.
>>
>>Uri
>
>But this is why your movei will have problems progressing
>like GCP is progressing fast now with Sjeng. He talks to the
>programmers live and he is there to operate his program.
>
>I will never trust it if we use some kind of protocol where i
>cannot see my opponent. There is too much money at stake with
>some people to just *assume* they play honest if you can't see
>them.

That is all well and good, but it wasn't Uri's point.  You can attend a
tournament,
but _not_ manually operate.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring
that a programmer attend, if you want.  But there is also absolutely nothing
wrong
with an automatic interface to actually play the games.  And in fact, there is a
lot
_right_ with it as it eliminates a significant opportunity for cheating...


>
>May i remind you the FIDE world champs qualifier which was played
>online? Can you please analyze the games of the first 8 who
>qualified. How many of them look non-computer helped to you?
>
>If you trust all those GMs, how many of the games the GM in person
>or even FM in person, played an opening he normally plays too?
>
>Isn't it weird that some games resemble some Top GMs, who didn't
>need to qualify, a lot?
>
>If you still are under the impression that this wouldn't happen
>in computerchess, then let me just tell you that for those GMs
>only up to $10000 was at stake, in order to qualify for moscow
>2001. In computerchess for the commercials you can add a few zero's
>to it for some.
>
>You still reading this?
>
>Best regards,
>Vincent



This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.