Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:12:43 03/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2004 at 15:24:34, Mike S. wrote: >I'm no chess programmer, but from a spectator's viewpoint, I'd prefer that a >full round robin is played, if necessary at shorter time controls. For example, >wouldn't it be possible to play 2 rounds per day with a time control of 40/40? >Then, a full round robin could be played during 9 days, if the number of >participants isn't higher than 19. > >(I think 40/2h or 60/2h or the like isn't significantly better than 40/40m.) > >Regards, >M.Scheidl I disagree with 40/40. That practical means you have like 25 minutes a game, as you lose 15 minutes operating time. No automatic play we will not do, because automatic protocols will FUCK you simply. Example the UCI protocol when used by chessbase will give the opponent 1MB hashtables. Crafty you simply give a takeback then a force move (and it won't ponder anymore) and so on. So automatic protocols, forget it. 25 minutes is of course something that means we go back to the middle 90s where search dominated more than it does now (evaluation dominates now). We want of course a tournament that is REPRESENTATIVE towards human world champs too. Playing a serious level and not some rapid level is therefore needed. Note many days we already play 2 rounds. I personally prefer 40 in 2 + 1 rest of the game above the already quick level of 60 in 2 + 30 rest of the game. practically you'll have less than 2 minutes a move nowadays. In 1999 that still was 3 minutes a move. So it is already quite something faster. In FIDE it's still 40 in 2 + 20 in 1 + 15. *every* competition i play or join is either that level or in belgium for example the level is 40 in 2 + 1.
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.