Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 09:19:33 12/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2004 at 11:35:21, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On December 13, 2004 at 11:21:31, Mikael Bäckman wrote: > >>On December 13, 2004 at 09:56:18, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>You do have to remember, however, that the length of the round is determined by >>>the absolute longest game. With 70+ participants, I am guessing that AT LEAST 1 >>>game will hit 150 moves every round. >>> >>>Another possibility, is to declare an adjudication win at X moves. If you hit >>>100 moves, it is draw regardless. (Or possibly we modify it to not be a draw if >>>there is mate on the board, or one side is WAY up (say +3 at least)). >>> >>>anthony >> >> >>This would lead to a lot of arguing since there are positions where +3 means >>nothing due to misevaluation. >>And to give an extreme example of misuse, one could code if (rootMoveNumber > >>100) displayedScore += rootMoveNumber; into the program and try to claim a win. >>I'm not paranoid :) This is just an example... >> >>Anyways, how do we check on-the-fly if the position really is a win or not? >> >>/Mikael > >Yeah, that is the problem. There are all sorts of ways I guess (determine >"referee program shredder 8", if it gets score X your game can continue) or >other things, but in general I think a small increment is just better. In fact, >I'm not completely against a simple 60 0 timecontrol. You get your hour, and >its up to you whether you want to use it all in the middlegame or save a lot for >a possible ironman end game. > >anthony That is much better than breaking after 100 moves (or some other limit). It's rhen up to the engine - the other is just complicating things. Either we have a fix time or the game will continue until it's ended by normal conditions. /Peter
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.