Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 06:59:00 01/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2004 at 19:57:23, Thorsten Czub wrote: >excuse me, but you are doing 5' blitz on a 450 mhz P3 ?? >thats ~ 1' blitz on a 1200 AMD and arround 30" blitz game on my 2400 + AMD. Athough i 100% agree that the games have no big value, your above logic is wrong. Imagine what a person in 2055 would say about the matches we play now at 40'/40 (long time control). He would say: "People of 2004 were really funny, they play 40'/40 on PIV-3GHz, that means 8 seconds for the whole game on our Pentium-XLI 74 PHz". I say again you are right, but the above logic is wrong. > >30" not for the move, but for the whole game !! > >so the programs have maybe 15 seconds to play senseful serious moves on a >2400+ machine and maybe 10 or 15 moves out of book and then they begin in move >20 to blunder for the next 15 seconds ?! > >and you play 60 of those games, to get a statistically relevant amount of data, >right ? > >don't you think it makes not much sense to run 60 games with 30" for the whole >game, when the programs play serious chess until move 20 ???? > > >why do you run the thing on a 286 and give them 1 ' per game ?? > >IMO you should play with an increment. to bring the programs somehow deeper into >the game material that they blunder later ... > >i really wonder what is going on.
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.