Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:33:57 01/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2004 at 14:25:07, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >On January 14, 2004 at 12:59:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >>If you don't, and the two programs are nearly equal, the result is almost a >>coin-toss, because when time is low, searches change. adding an increment >>says that you can _always_ search for that long, plus whatever fraction of >>the original time block you want to invest... you never have to play a move >>in a fraction of a second where tactics might smoke you... > >I wonder.... with that, are you _explaining_ the definition of "best chess >engine" or are you just _redefining_ it? > > >J. I'm not sure what you mean. I've _always_ maintained that the best long-game engine is not necessarily the best short-game engine. It is _possible_ that is true, but it is not guaranteed. So taking a long game and reducing it to milliseconds-per-move at the end can change the result and skew the overall outcome. Or just turn it into a coin-flip as to who makes the first mistake and actually suffers for it.
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.