Author: KarinsDad
Date: 21:29:35 02/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 1999 at 22:12:49, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On February 19, 1999 at 20:45:56, greg moller wrote: > >>On February 19, 1999 at 18:20:10, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>On February 19, 1999 at 17:04:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>Just an opinion, but I don't believe GM players think much of 'increment' >>>>games. IE the largest number of blitz games vs crafty (by GM opponents) >>>>turn out to be 5 0. Yes a couple play a lot of 5 3 and 5 5 (and one likes >>>>5 14). But there seems to be 'something' about increments that they don't >>>>like. >>> >>>My guess is that a lot of GMs are from the "old school" where the time was the >>>time and that's it. Even knowing the advantages of the increments, it may be >>>difficult for some players to break old habits. Also, in blitz play 5 5 is a >>>totally different game than 5 0, at least to a computer. A well written program >>>would take advantage of every second of that increment (and would gain >>>considerably) whereas a human could, but would have a harder time of it. > >>I tend to think that the longer the time control, the better the human's >>chances. 5 5 is longer than 5 0, therefore the human benefits more, according to >>this logic. Which, of course, is diametrically opposed to your contention. >>If i've misread your comments, I apologize :-) You may have misread me. I stated two things: some GMs may be used to no increments and programs should do better than humans using increments. No more, no less. You are correct that 5 5 should be better than 5 0 for a human, but a program should be able to take advantage of each extra second more than a human (whether or not that is enough in a given game to make up for the advantage the human gains in time is questionable). However, I may have stated it somewhat poorly since although I was using the word increment, in my mind I was thinking delay. The program's advantage with a delay is more obvious than with an increment, however, if programmed properly, a chess program should be able to ascertain the times when it is advantageous to move quickly in an incremental system just like a human can (and maybe even better). > >5 5 is harder for a program than 5 0. > >bruce As for Bruce's statement, please explain. Do you mean merely against humans (since the humans get more time and are better with more time) or is there some other meaning? KarinsDad
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.