Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:30:03 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 20:48:07, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >On October 13, 2003 at 14:30:24, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: > >>On October 13, 2003 at 13:09:03, Charles Roberson wrote: >> >>> >>> You make the statement that Diep is a positional engine and you chose it based >>>on that. So, why did you run G/5 matches? At G/5 tactics and search depth >>>is crucial. >> >> >>With a sole purpose in my mind: to get an idea in which positions Diep does not >>feel quite at home. Which I did. And the short time controls (sad, but true) >>were the only way to play a lot of games and check Diep out as much as I could. >>Besides, it is always fun to watch two different programs play each other for >>the first time on your computer. You just might agree with me on that. >> >>As for the ubiquitous umbrella excuse offered by losers at blitz time controls >>over and over again, please read Christophe's post below. > >Yes, I read the Theron´s message but I dont agree. I have got very different >result when the time controls are very different. For instance, I get better >result when Amy plays in long time controls. Amy plays badly in short time >controls against the same engine. This problem does not exist when using time control of 1 minute per game+1 second per move see http://www.innconx.com/~wildcat/bullet/Ratings.html Amy is place 16 and it is not a top engine at longer time control based on Leo tournament. I guess that Amy simply has bad time managemant at games with no increasement. Quark is probably a better example for an engine that does better at long time control. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.