Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: If blitz testing is so interesting, then how about instant?

Author: Graham Laight

Date: 09:42:06 12/06/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 06, 2002 at 04:23:35, Uri Blass wrote:

>On December 06, 2002 at 04:17:17, stuart taylor wrote:
>
>>Yes, the whole question is in the heading.
>>Maybe someone can compare the playing strength of programs on instant. If Blitz,
>>why not instant? And if not instant, why anything less than long time?
>>S.Taylor
>>
>>Oh! I just thought, maybe because people here like competing with Blitz on chess
>>servers?
>
>I use time control of 1 second per game in my testing to catch bugs.
>
>If the new program performs clearly weaker in 1 second per game then it means
>that I have a new bug(the opposite is not correct and if it does not I still
>need to do more tests to find if there is a bug).
>
>Instant is not well defined.
>The problem is that you cannot play in exactly 0 seconds and if you have no
>rules for maximal time that is allowed then the game is not defined.

At the risk of being argumentative, I disagree.

If a computer is playing a human, it should make a list of replies to all
possible moves the human makes. The rule is that once the human makes his moves,
the computer is NOT permitted to do any positional calculations, and must select
the best move it has already found to the human move.

This would throttle off a lot of the computer's power - but I fear that on
modern hardware the computer would still be too strong for many of us.

-g

>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.