Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:32:14 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). Amy had bugs in the time management algorithm and I specifically talked about programs without bugs. I think that usually the difference in relative strength between blitz and long time control is small at least if we do not talk about programs that support parallel search. Uri
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.