Author: José Carlos
Date: 07:23:20 01/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2004 at 04:37:15, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I used to play 30 0 in the past. Then I saw some losses on time in the last second when my engine printed in its log file that it still had some small fraction of second remaining. It could be a bad measuring by my engine or the GUI communication delay, but when added 1 second per move, these things didn't happen anymore. I also thought about telling the engine that there's always one second less than really there is, but I didn't want to waste a second. José C.
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.