Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:04:33 01/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2004 at 18:10:50, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >>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. > >The thought doesn't go that deep :) >It might be that you're just testing time management. It is true that an engine >can return nonsense in a millisecond if it has to. However I feel that the true >strenght of an engine is first of all the ability to find a correct solution, >secondly to find it in the shortest time span, and thirdly to find it in the >time alotted. I.e. there's a hierarchy in determining what makes an engine >"best". > >J. At ultra-fast time controls, serendipity wins more games than it should. That was why I suspected that increments are popular, nobody gets into a wild time-scramble. Or one program doesn't get into a lucky ponder-cycle and save enough time to put the opponent into a fast blitz mode at a fraction of a second per move.
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.