Author: Zappa
Date: 17:42:17 12/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2005 at 20:03:27, Graham Banks wrote: >On December 10, 2005 at 19:39:12, Zappa wrote: > >>On December 10, 2005 at 18:08:10, Graham Banks wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 2005 at 17:51:53, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: >>> >>>>that sounds good. Do these books force the programs to play a wide sample of >>>>openings (e.g., like nunn2?? >>>>best >>>>Joseph >>> >>> >>>Hi Joseph, >>> >>>have a read through this: >>>http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/conditions.htm >>> >>>Regards, Graham. >> >>To be honest, I really consider CEGT to be a rapid TC list. Any tester with >>good hardware will be running 20 minute games with ponder off, so its about 20 >>times quicker than tournament games . . . >> >>anthony > > >Hi Anthony, > >you're correct of course. >At some future point the benchmark used will need to be reworked to come more >into line with modern hardware. > >There are those of course who would argue that the relative performances of most >engines don't differ markedly no matter what time control is used, but a small >handful of engines definitely perform better at either blitz or at longer time >controls. > >Some CEGT testers are interested in developing a rating list based on a longer >time control, but we haven't taken that step as yet. Stay tuned! > >Mind you there will always be detractors no matter what as you're probably >aware! :-0 > >Regards, Graham There's nothing wrong with being a rapid timecontrol rating list. I'm just sort of amused by this guy who talks about CEGT blitz being "so slow" when I consider even the slow list rather fast :) anthony
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.