Author: James T. Walker
Date: 06:32:37 10/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2004 at 02:29:53, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 13, 2004 at 20:36:53, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On October 13, 2004 at 08:03:36, Tony Hedlund wrote: >> >>>On October 13, 2004 at 07:21:53, William Penn wrote: >>> >>>>It's good to see these test results being posted here again! >>>>Any idea when the next SSDF list will be published? Sorry if that has already >>>>been mentioned. I was away from this board for awhile. >>>>Thanks, >>>>WP >>> >>>I don't know. It seem like my friends are losing interest. We are now discussing >>>if/how we will continue. >>> >>>Tony >> >>I hope that before you decide to quit you will at least consider using shorter >>time controls. Nobody plays 40/2 anymore except SSDF. >>Jim > >1)It is not nobody. >As far as I know thorsten is using 40/120 in his tournaments and other people >like Leo use 40/40 on faster hardware that is almost the same as 40/120. > >The time control in WCCC was 60/120+30 but considering the faster hardware it is >even slower time control than SSDF. > >2)The fact that most people use shorter time control is a good reason to have >40/120 because we have enough information about >shorter time control. > >Uri "Nobody" means humans in tournaments/matches not computers. The WCCC time control is fine. The fact that SSDF is using old/slow hardware in comparison is not important at this time. Most people are not using Quads at home now. I was suggesting the faster time controls to increase data in a given amount of time since I believe that results will not vary greatly from 3 min/move to 2 min/move or even faster. Getting faster results is more interesting to most testers than sticking to the old 40/2. (My opinion from experience beta testing with others) Jim
This page took 0.02 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.