Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:37:07 02/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2000 at 22:52:50, odell hall wrote: >On February 16, 2000 at 22:09:36, Tina Long wrote: > >>On February 16, 2000 at 22:00:11, odell hall wrote: >> >> >>> I still think that your overplaying the importance of time! Sure I will >>>agree that there is a huge difference between 5 0 chess or even 30 0 chess, >>>compared with 40\2. But I don't think the difference is so great between 60 0 >>>and 40/2. One hour is more than enough time for a Grandmaster to apply his so >>>called- Superior Chess knowledge, Many grandmasters calculate with incredible >>>speed and are much less likely to be beat on a tactical shot. If you notice the >>>three games that deep junior has played, he has won none of the games on >>>Cheapo's or due to petty oversights by the GM's. A few Grandmasters even >>>commented on Deep Junior Positional play. I find it hard to see how you can >>>suggest that the grandmasters will rise in strength by 300 rating points going >>>from 60 0 to 40/2. We are all chess players here, and I think most of us >>>realize that there is not much difference between 60 0 and 40/2, although I do >>>concede that there is a difference but I would say maybe a 50 point rating >>>increase is more reasonable, rather than the 300+ points that you suggest. BTW I >>>would appreciate an intelligent response devoid of insults or sarcastic remarks. >>> >>>Thanks >>> >>> >>Absolute rubbish!, >> >>In 40/120, an IM or a GM will sit for 10 or 20 minutes on a single move at the >>vital point of the game. There are regularly moves that take 5-10 minutes. >> >>These are the very important moves, the moves that make it a 40/120 Tournament >>game by an IM or GM. The IM or GM cannot afford that sort of time consumption >>in Game in 60. >> >>While what you say is correct for most moves of a game, it is completely wrong >>for the most important moves. >> >>Tina Long > > > Unfortunately you did not address the most important point of my post which is >the Question: How much of a rating increase do humans Gain going from 60 0 to >40/2? According to Larry kaufman human are 65 points stronger going from 30\0 >to 40/2, I expect 60 0 to 40/2 the increase would be even less. The fact that >some grandmasters often spend 20 minutes on a given move doesn't neccessarily >prove that the move will be stronger, often grandmasters spend a hour on a move >to produce a blunder!! I have seen this often. Length does not always mean >Quality. Annand for instance has been known to spend less than 60 minutes for >an entire 40/2 game. Since you believe what I say is "Rubbish" Why don't you >please prove it and supply some concrete evidence which shows a 300pt increase >going from 60 0 to 40/2?? These type of dogmatic statements are taken for >granted as fact because some self-proclaimed know it all has said so, without >any proof. Please show me the proof!! You are overlooking the obvious. If the computer and GM are 'equal' after the first 30 moves or so, then they suddenly find themselves playing a game/30 time control since 30 minutes are gone. If the GM is ahead by a pawn after move 60, he finds himself trying to play game/5 against the computer. The longer the game, the shorter the time control. In 40/2 that doesn't happen, as there is a secondary time control.
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.