Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:32:31 09/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2003 at 05:19:56, Russell Reagan wrote: >On September 19, 2003 at 03:58:42, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>Not to mention you have to actually operate them. I've lose a 120/40 30SD >>game on time in the last world championships. I've seen several of people lose >>90SD games on time in Leiden. The blitz worldchampionship is played at 7" and >>the majority of games seems to be decided on time. >> >>I don't think operator skills should be relevant to who ends up winning, >>but by shortening things, I'll be even worse than what it is today. > > >That's why no event serious event should have operators moving pieces around a >board, unless they just feel like doing it in addition to the autmoated game >going on between the computers. How primitive is that, really? Pretty much every >engine supports some kind of protocol, and those that don't could certainly >implement UCI in an hour. I understand that UCI is a protocol that limit your possibilities(for example you cannot decide to ponder on more than one move). I do not do it but I do not like protocol that limit your possibilities in the first place so I prefer winboard. 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.