Author: Uri Blass
Date: 20:02:36 11/05/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 2005 at 21:49:56, Chuck wrote: >On November 05, 2005 at 13:24:46, Steve B wrote: > >>>If you do not like programs run out of time you can use increasement or use x >>>minutes/y moves. >> >> >>running out of time is ok if the position is not in balance >> but to let the game proceed ..with Queens being shuffled back and forth and the >>clock going down or waiting for the 50 move rule is not interesting and says >>nothing of the strength between the Engines >> >>Steve > >I have to agree with Steve's point of view here. I really want to know which >engine is genuinely stronger, and I'm not really interested in results that are >skewed by one program have a better time management routine. An interest in >taking time management out of the game and leaving the decision to your chess >playing ability is the whole reason the "per-move time bonus" was created (I >mention this to show that there is a common interest on this topic). > >Regards, > >Chuck I do not agree. all the idea of games is to test the all package including time management of the engine. If you use blitz time control and not game with increasment or x minutes/y moves then time management is more important but it is important in every time control. If you do not want to test the time management then you can use fixed time per move and even this is not a good idea because there are programming tricks to do the program better if it knows that it has fixed time(for example when it fails low not to try to find exact score because of estimate that you cannot complete it in the fixed time and looking at other moves to find if there is something better) Uri 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.