Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 01:47:39 10/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2004 at 13:59:15, James T. Walker wrote: >On October 14, 2004 at 12:19:39, William Penn wrote: > >>On October 14, 2004 at 09:32:37, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>I am only interested in correspondence chess, so the slower the better. For that >>purpose 40/2 is borderline acceptable as a testing time control, but certainly >>not anything faster. >> >>A minimum time control for correspondence play is 1 hour per move, but >>preferably at least 4 hours per move for each player. That comes to 80-320 hours >>of computer time needed for a 40 move game. >> >>Don't say it is impossible. This sort of long computer analysis is being used by >>thousands of correspondence chess players today! >>WP > >Never said it was impossible. You are welcome to run games/analysis at any time >control you wish. If you think the SSDF or any other testing body will be happy >to do the same you are wrong. I believe that nothing they do should be >interpreted as being relavent at 4 hours/move. If you think 3 min/move is good >enough for 1-4 hours/move analysis you are in a small minority. None of this >has anything to do with the direction the topic was drifting towards. The SSDF >is losing interest in testing even at 40/2. I was only expressing my wish that >they consider shorter time controls before quiting completely. It seems the >SSDFs main purpose was to provide computer chess enthusiast with data on >different programs strength relative to each other. They started with the 40/2 >time control because it was fashionable and pretty much standard. It is out of >fashion now and I have maintained for the past 3/4 years that they should >consider faster time controls to keep up with the times. >Jim The time controls is not an issue. We will probably continue, and of course at 40/2. Tony
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.