Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 21:05:08 01/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2003 at 02:27:27, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 04, 2003 at 02:15:47, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 03, 2003 at 23:48:42, Mike Byrne wrote: >> >>>>On January 03, 2003 at 19:15:03, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>No >>>> >>>>I never tried it but I think that if it can be effective then it can be >>>>effective only at long time control because at short time control tactics is >>>>more important and 2 engines that run slower are going to see less than one >>>>engine. >>>> >>>>My opinion is that hash tables are not very important and doubling the hash >>>>tables is not supposed to increase the rating by more than 6-7 elo. >>>> >>>>I never tried the tripple brain but I understood that >>>>it may divide the hash only by 2 >>>> >>>>My understanding is that >>>>There are 2 engines that calculates at the same time and the third thing is not >>>>an engine but some small program that decides based on the main lines and the >>>>score to which program to believe when the search is finished. >>>> >>>>I may condsider to try it because I am going to play in a correspondence >>>>tournament that begins in 15.1 as the 6th board of Israel >>>> >>>>I am going to play in the >>>>15th Olympiad - Preliminaries >>>>(2nd Email Olympiad) >>>> >>>>Preliminary Group 3 >>>>(CCO15S3) >>>> >>>>It starts in 15.1 >>>> >>>>It means that I may buy shredder7,Fritz8 and Tiger15 in the near future. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>Ahem.... excuse me Uri, but wouldn't that be cheating? or is this a computer >>>corespondence tournament? >>> >>>Just wondering .... >>> >>>Michael Byrne >> >>It is humans tournament but using computers is allowed. >> >>The rules are simply practical. >>It is impossible to prevent people to use computers so using computers is >>allowed. >> >>For the same reason it is also allowed to ask other people for advice. >> >>I used only the help of computers in my previous tournament. >>I did not trust the computer suggestion in 100% of the cases but I did it in >>most of the cases. >> >>cases when I chose a move that was not in the opening databases and was not >>suggested by one of the commercial programs were rare and I did it only after a >>long analysis with the help of computers. >> >>Uri > >I can add that I am talking about the previous tournament when I became the >Israeli champion in correspondence chess. > >In that tournament I played 8 games and it was mostly by mail(I played 2 games >by emails and 6 games by mail). > >Now I am going to play 10 games by email and I think that I am going to use >relatively less time per opponent but I still expect to give programs to analyze >some hours per move except some obvious move in the opening or forced moves. > >Note that even in the opening after some moves I am not going to trust blindly >the opening book. > >I will probably give in most cases only one engine to analyze the root position >for some hours and I may do more analysis of other lines dependent on the >position. > >Uri I am a little surprized, but as you indicated, it's not enforceablle so why have it (the rule). On one of the sites, I saw a survey about use of computers, most indicated they are using computers for storage, databases or opeming theory, some are using them for blunderchecks, a small percentage are using computer to generate the moves (so in essence the program is playing and not the person). It seems like correspondance chess is no longer the same.
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.