Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 08:14:22 12/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 1999 at 09:22:52, James T. Walker wrote: >On December 02, 1999 at 06:43:04, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>First 3 games Rebel-Tiger against Shredder 4. Tiger was on a PII-300 with 64MB >>hashtables and Shredder on a PIII-500 with 128MB hash and Nalimov tablebases. >>With strict chess rules, S4 would have lost the third game on time, given the >>delay I mentioned in another post between playing and transmitting moves. It's >>interesting to see how it manages against a program that is 2.5 times faster in >>tactics. Very fine program this Shredder 4. >> >>Enrique >> > >Hello Enrique, >I missed your other post concerning the delay between transmitting and playing >moves. I'm not sure what you mean by Shredder losing on time. If you are >playing Auto232 games it seems to me that Shredder should only lose if the time >has expired on it's own clock before making the time control. If you mean that >Rebel-Tiger claimed a win on time when Shredder still showed time on it's own >clock then Shredder should not lose because of the delay. Just my opinion of >course. >Jim Walker Shredder 4 has a delay of 7 to 10 seconds from the moment it plays to the moment it transmits the move. During this delay, S4 appears to do nothing at all, but it is as if a player would move without letting the opponent see the move. It must be an innocent bug, but the wasted time is there and applying strict tournament rules it should be added to the clock. I counted the game as the draw that happened on the board, but... Enrique
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.