Author: stuart taylor
Date: 17:23:20 02/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2000 at 10:29:00, blass uri wrote: >On February 17, 2000 at 09:37:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >There is no doubt that GM's are better in 40/2 relative to G/60 but the question >is how much better. > >I also do not think that there is a 300 pt increase > >I believe that GM's can do better at G/60. >I believe that GM's can train with computers and improve their game(for example >by doing exercises of trying to avoid mistakes of humans against computers) but >I wonder how many of them really do it. > >I know for example that yona kosashvili has a full time job as a doctor and does >not have time to be a proffesional player. > >The problem is that there is not enough money in chess >I believe that we are going to see GM's play better if the prizes are going to >be 10 times bigger. > >Uri And the blunder factor and blunder scare with humans is a huge factor of determining results. That also makes game in 60 a great disadvantage for the human. Prove me that it's less than an average of 150-200 elo! But it cannot be proven easily, but I'm sure it's not less (on average. not the same with every GM in every style in every mood in every situation of external stresses. But altogether-on average). 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.