Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:37:15 01/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2004 at 04:35:51, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 14, 2004 at 04:06:47, José Carlos wrote: > >>On January 14, 2004 at 03:24:10, Jouni Uski wrote: >> >>>Many testers (specially in Germany) play their test games with x basic minutes + >>>y seconds increment. What is the benefit of this kind of hydrid level really? >>>I still prefer to play x moves in y minutes . Of course reason for increment is >>>to make time losses almost impossible, but this is wrong way I think. If engine >>>loses on time it's engines own fault and should punish for that end of >>>discussion! With x/n You can count tournament time by estimating around 70 moves >>>in each game. >>> >>>Alternatively You can of course play game in x minutes but still no increment >>>needed. >>> >>>Jouni >> >> I can't speak for others, but I like to use 1 second increment because Arena >>(doesn't happen to winboard) eats a small time fraction in communicating with >>the engines. In case of a loss on time, I don't want to need to investigate if >>Arena or the engine was guilty. >> >> José C. > >I do not see how it helps. > >There is always time when adding 1/100 seconds mean losing on time. >If the interface use that 1/100 second then it means that the engine may lose on >time because of the interface. > >If you are afraid of time trouble when the engine cannot avoid losing on time(I >cannot avoid losing on time in 1 second per game if the interface add 0.1 >seconds for every move) then x minutes/y moves is a good solution and you do not >need the increasment. > >Uri To be more correct I mean when the interface steal 0.1 seconds from the engines 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.