Author: David Dahlem
Date: 14:32:10 01/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2004 at 14:46:56, David Dory wrote: >On January 14, 2004 at 11:12:43, David Dahlem wrote: > >>On January 14, 2004 at 03:58:02, David Dory 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 >>> >>>The answer, I believe, is to keep the emphasis of the program/human on playing >>>chess, rather than mere time management. >>> >>>There's nothing wrong with either time schedule, it's just a matter of emphasis. >>> >>>David >> >>"Time management" is part of "playing chess". You can't have one without the >>other! >> >>Regards >>Dave > >Historically, that's not correct. There certainly WAS chess without time >management - because there were no time controls. :) > >Today, it's like a sandwich - a layer of sliced meat, (chess), and some smaller >amount of mayonnaise, mustard, (time management), and bread and veggies. > >Do you want more mayo and mustard, or meat? > >David We are talking about playing chess in the present, not the past, are we not? Whether there "was" chess without time control rules is not revelant to the current state of chess rules, where time control "is" part of playing chess. :-) Regards Dave
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.