Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 10:22:00 01/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2004 at 07:53:27, Roberto Nerici wrote: >On January 14, 2004 at 07:04:06, Tord Romstad 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 . >> >>Personally I much prefer time controls with increments, and I never use >>anything else whan testing my own engine. Giving a small increment for >>every move made seems much more logical than suddenly giving a huge increment >>after 40 (or whatever) moves. What is so special about the number 40? > >I agree that having an increment is more logical than having suddenly adding an >hour or whatever after 40 moves. > >What suprises me a little is how much incremental time controls are used >compared to simple total time controls (e.g. G60). I think the latter is a good >test of an engine's time control and also gives you a definite limit on when a >game is going to end... As you say, G60 without increment is good if you want the engine's time management to be an important factor. On the other hand, such time controls have the unfortunate consequence that very long games (which, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, is very common in comp-comp games) ends in a competition about which engine is better at avoiding blunders when thinking for a fraction of a second on every move. The ability to grind out wins from long endgames is not rewarded as much as it should be. Personally I think comparing the endgame skills of chess engines is more interesting than comparing the time management skills, but this is of course a matter of taste. Tord
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.