Author: stuart taylor
Date: 08:26:03 01/01/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2006 at 10:54:00, James T. Walker wrote: >On January 01, 2006 at 01:25:15, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On December 31, 2005 at 22:30:27, Keith Ian Price wrote: >> >>>On December 31, 2005 at 19:42:44, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On December 31, 2005 at 18:43:38, James T. Walker wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 31, 2005 at 16:07:00, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Blitz is SO unimportant, to the value of a chess machine, in my opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you think you are better at blitz than your computer, or that it has no >>>>>>useful experience to offer you, when you play it, (compared with what others >>>>>>give), OK! If you like to analyze a position, but after set-up, you can't >>>>>>possibly wait more than five more seconds to see what analysis the computer >>>>>>shows, OK! (I'd hate to think what your opinion is about todays computers, as a >>>>>>whole!) >>>>>>But any other reason, I can't see what there is to feel "disturbed" about, if at >>>>>>slightly longer timings, it is better than any other program around. >>>>>> >>>>>>If it was the strongest program only at 20 hours a move, I'd also understand it >>>>>>might be a bit disturbing. It would not let you think about anything else during >>>>>>the day! >>>>>> >>>>>>But at normal human thought periods, if it gives the best analysis or plays the >>>>>>best moves for a machine, I don't think anything should be done to compromise >>>>>>this. If blitz takes away from the above, in any way (and I WOULD be disturbed), >>>>>>then I'm not concerned about the blitz at all. >>>>>>S.Taylor >>>>> >>>>>You are entitled to your opinion so please allow me mine. I wouldn't care if >>>>>the engine exploded when reaching 3 minutes on one move. >>>>>Jim >>>> >>>>If you feel THAT strongly, then I would be disturbed too (if a new good engine >>>>didn't live up to it's standards in blitz, too)! >>>>(but I was only afraid that programmers should not be bogged down, because of >>>>blitz, so as not to hurt MY self interests, if it would. e.g. if one year it >>>>didn't get very strong, but in blitz it was a great success, then the programmer >>>>might think...anyway, "it's worthy of release because of its blitz". >>>>But for you, that's just fine!) >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>> >>>I think all engines should be released with two versions; one tuned for blitz >>>and one for tournament. After all there is a WCCC Blitz Tourney now as well, and >>>using the Blitz version would be good advertising. Make that three >>>versions--also one for analysis, which would perform a lot more extensions, >>>which might make it weaker in play, >> >>would really? or just slower? >> >> >>>but it would find the solution to most test >>>positions, and help analyze positions from Grandmaster games. >>> >>>kp >> >>But if he can only put full efforts into one of them, which should it be? Or >>should his efforts be split? > >Good point but consider this. If it is good at all 3 then wouldn't that broaden >the customer base and increase sales? If it's a third as good as it could be, in each aspect? Maybe! (it would broaden sales). Still I prefer what I prefer, and you prefer what you prefer. What's objectively better? I think the playing level at longer timings, is. But that doesn't mean that what some others prefer, isn't just as important or more. S.Taylor
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.