Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:40:26 02/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 1999 at 04:25:58, Mark Young wrote: >On February 20, 1999 at 03:29:57, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On February 20, 1999 at 00:29:35, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>On February 19, 1999 at 22:12:49, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>>5 5 is harder for a program than 5 0. >> >>>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? >> >>I am talking about human versus computer. In computer versus computer it >>obviously doesn't matter what happens. >> >>In zero-increment games, programs don't manage time very well, but they don't >>run out, because they simply move when they have time. I never worry about my >>program having time problems. It spent on the order of a minute per move at the >>beginning of those games, and the spectators were grumbling about this, because >>they thought the program was using too much, but it had plenty left at the end >>of the game. >> >>Some people have problems with time discipline, and they flag. This is the most >>senseless aspect of the human game, and it is astonishing to find it even in >>very strong players. >> >>It is hard for a person to run out of time in a 5 5, because they always start >>with at least five seconds on the clock for each move, no matter how close they >>came to flagging on the previous move. They are forced to use time discipline. >> >>In a 5 0 game, a program will have less time per move, obviously, than it would >>in a 5 5 game, but there is also a mad scramble at the end where the human, even >>has little time and has to deal with something that has more time and won't roll >>over and die. >> >>In a 5 5 they can get an advantage and convert it. >> >>If you automate a program and tell it to play only humans at 5 0, and take >>another one and tell it to play only humans at 5 5, the first one will usually >>have a significantly higher rating, I think. > >I agree, and is why I always thought it unwise to compare and draw conclusions >between manual and automated program ratings on ICC, FICS etc. at blitz time >controls. > >Being able to play 5 0 and 3 0 games without loss of time and without losing on >time is a big advantage for the automated programs when playing strong humans or >other manual programs. > >Mark yes, but the 'automatic' programs have problems as well. They have to adjust their time _by themselves" without a human to say 'speed up' you are getting low on time. And even more important, an automatic program has to contend with an IM that plays 30 games in a row, fishing for an opening bust. Manual operators won't allow that and stop after they see what is happening. Putting a program on ICC 'automatically' will expose a _lot_ of shortcomings in the way it plays that are not apparent when playing a few games per day. >> >>I've watched mine win many games where it has a bad position, but several >>minutes left on the clock (in a 5 0 game), and the opponent has little or no >>time. In a 5 5 it loses all of these games. >> >>bruce
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.