Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:23:06 11/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 2005 at 22:56:55, Ryan B. wrote: >On November 07, 2005 at 18:19:55, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 07, 2005 at 16:36:40, Derek Paquette wrote: >> >>>This doesn't mean much unfortunately, >>> >>>unless its classical time control where the opponent has time to think all his >>>moves through, its an advantage for the machine before the first piece moves. >> >>It is also an advantage for the machine before the first piece move if it is a >>classical time control. >> >>Humans are simply not strong in chess and time control is not relevant. >> >>I am also not sure if slower time control are better for the human. >> >>Some humans may have better chances to beat chess programs at blitz when at long >>time control the machines do not do the same errors that they do in blitz. >> >>I remember that adams after drawing against Junior some years ago claimed that >>he could beat Junior easily in blitz with the same opening when it trained >>against it at home but it turned out that Junior played better at long time >>control and could draw the game. >> >>Uri > >Humans are not strong in chess? Funny stuff. Yes programs have advantages but >so do humans in other ways. I'll take my odds at clasic time control over blitz >any day. based on your wins against fruit I can see that fruit could play better at slower time control. The same is for you but if the target is to win and not to draw we need evidence that humans have better chance to win at longer time control. I believe that it was the case in the past but part of the improvement in chess programs is that they have better branching factor so this is not something that is always obvious. 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.