Author: Paolo Casaschi
Date: 14:30:02 08/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2005 at 17:26:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >On August 16, 2005 at 17:16:33, Paolo Casaschi wrote: > >>>I know that usually when program improve they improve in all time controls. >>>I do not know of evaluation changes or search changes that make programs weaker >>>at blitz but stronger at long time control. >>> >>>In thoery it can happen but I need to see a proof for it and I believe that >>>fabien mainly test in blitz time control(he can correct me if I am wrong) >>>because usually productive changes in blitz of adding knowledge to the >>>evaluation are also productive at long time control. >> >>Do you have any proof or evidence that there is some correlation between blitz >>strenght and slower speed strenght? >>If you dont, then we can only compare assumptions and I tend to agree with Bob >>Hyatt since the same non-correlation is evident with humans and because common >>sense... > >There is definitely a general correlation between strength at blitz and strength >at standard time control. However, there are also exceptions to the rule. > >For instance, we will expect Fruit to be stronger than Golem at blitz, in the >same way that we would expect Kasparov to clobber me at blitz. > >On the other hand, Mike Valvo overperforms at blitz, and Amy used to >underperform badly (it was mostly due to bad algorithms for time management at >fast time control). Exactly my point. There is some correlation but there are exceptions and it's possible that different players have a different type of correlation, thus the point of Bob Hyatt stands. --Paolo
This page took 0.02 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.