Author: greg moller
Date: 10:24:57 02/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 1999 at 10:37:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 18, 1999 at 22:23:26, greg moller wrote: > >>Why wasn't the match played with small increments ?? Seems to me that the icc is >>tailor-made for that. Of course it would help the human, but shouldn't the >>quality of play be held in high regard ? >>This way all we had was a glorified blitz match. Time shouldn't play such a huge >>factor. I think most of us know that computers are now better than humans at >>sudden-death time controls. A wasted opportunity, yet again :-( >> >>Regards, gm > > >I believe this is a 'spectator' issue. 40/2 games are not a lot of fun to >watch. game/30 games are faster and more interesting. When the purpose is >'entertainment' you have to do things to entertain. Certainly I'd prefer to >see some longer time controls, but ICC tries to do the things that members >want to see, and that GM's will participate in. game/30 is 'casual'. 40/2 >means the GM is going to have to prepare some as it seems more 'serious'. > >just an opinion, of course... if game/30 (30 0) is casual, then what would we call 25 5 ? With a small increment the game couldn't realistically go on forever, but the quality of play, at least from the human side would improve, and as a result, yes , the match should be even more entertaining, IMO. Think about it, you'd also lessen the chance of the gm making a 'spectacle' out of his play. We might be able to see more 'brave' GMs this way, unless, of course, they'd cynically prefer to keep sudden-death as a potential excuse for an eventual defeat... regards, gm
This page took 0.01 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.