Author: A. Steen
Date: 09:05:15 11/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2005 at 10:23:53, George Tsavdaris wrote: >>As it happened, on only one move did I take more than about 5 seconds. > >Hard to believe.......! I could do it with 9 seconds per move but 5 seconds >it's too quick for me.......... "Hard to believe" ?? I'll ignore the insult, possibly unintended. You are way out in your understanding. I play regularly as a guest at 1 0 on the chess servers. That is all one's moves in 1 minute. Allowing for average lags, that means for me moving about 5 moves every 4 seconds. And I am considered slow. Not fast, but slow. I do not win most of my games on flag. I have personally witnessed others move as many as 5 or even more moves in a second (using pre-move, of course). Humans, not computers. I will name one such player and you can do your own research. He is mentioned in- http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1361 His name is GM Roland Schmalz, known as "Hawkeye" on ICC. He has been timed at as high as 7 moves/second. So please don't flatter me about my 0.2 or 0.3 moves/second in a game that placed no demands on me while my opponent sleep-walked to its doom. >>>1...Nc6? is bad for a computer and not only, i think...... >> >>Please see- >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?464150 > >I saw that. It's better to use Fruit's book i think...... To make sure I have the right one, it is book.bin in the Fruit directory, file size 1,487,264 and crc32 of 25150B06. Correct? >>>and a nice win......! >> >>Incorrect. Fruit committed suicide. >Actually yes, Fruit just played too peacefully. Only its Nxc5 and g5 was >somewhat active......... "Peacefully" is being kind. It sleep-walked. As I desired, from this game, one can learn little or nothing about Steen, and plenty about Fruit. It is too honest and peacable, probably thanks to its very balanced and well-written evaluation. FRUIT needs POISION! Fritz and Shredder have plenty of that. >>As to which 6-men (attention! "pieces" strictly excludes pawns, so "men" is >>better), > >No! Pieces include Pawns too. >From FIDE Laws of the game: Please. FIDE laws of the game permitted _triple_ check, I seem to remember reading in the column of Mr Krabbe. FIDE laws even on castling have in the past contained an ambiguity. :) Of course, you understand I was joking with you. The distinction between "men" and "pieces" comes from the age of Tarrasch. Best, A.S.
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.