Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 10:09:18 11/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
>>>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. It was not to insult you in any way, but to express my doubt about any such possible play at 5 sec/move AT MOST and being able to find all the best moves.....I still can't believe it......I can believe it, if you say that you played in some moves with 2-4 seconds more than 5 seconds but if 5 seconds is the limit i can't believe it. > >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. No human can play 5 moves in 4 seconds via internet! The mouse movements take around 5-6 seconds and even if you are allowed to grab a piece to have it ready for respond, that would need the opponent to make around 2-3 seconds per move in order to give you time to respond.....But even then with 1-2 seconds to think about a move this can not be called Chess....... >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. Again this is not possible if the opponent plays in 1-2 seconds. But if the opponent makes 3-4 seconds to move then using "pre-move" it is easy to play as many moves you want as when the opponent plays you can play in less than 0.3 seconds a move by releasing the mouse. >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. > >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? Correct! > >"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. I can note that Fruit tries to have a balanced position and to control everything without taking risks. It's a matter of style......Not a bad thing. Perhaps if Fruit's programmer tries to make it play with a more risky style then Fruit's strength will decrease...... >> >>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. :) This is different. It is not a complex definition as the mentioned draw cases and no possible mistakes can occur. FIDE just defines that Pawns are Chess pieces! That's all. You said that Pawns are excluded from Chess pieces. As we have to follow something to play Chess, we should follow FIDE. So you were wrong....... > >Of course, you understand I was joking with you. The distinction between "men" >and "pieces" comes from the age of Tarrasch. >
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.