Houdini 3 running for the IPON

[IWB]

5m+1s is a very nice time control. It is what is used in HG's monthly online tournaments.

I strongly dislike sudden death time controls like 5+0

I personaly would like a +0 but think that many engine might have problems with many GUIs and how they are handling this - and thats a factor I can't eliminate. Besides that I play with a network where I have some lag for sure. Thats why I would go for a +1.

BYe
Ingo

[Modern Times]

Hmm I dissagree, but I proposed something better for both! Sudden death leaves the timing decision to the engine as it sould be for a rating list!

Bye
Ingo

OK, it is fine to disagree

[Graham Banks]

.....I argue - you jump in from time to time because you feel attacked.........

No - it's just that I don't agree that there's a right way or a wrong way, or that your way is better than anybody else's.

[IWB]

.....I argue - you jump in from time to time because you feel attacked.........

No - it's just that I don't agree that there's a right way or a wrong way, or that your way is better than anybody else's.

Again you stripped my question for arguments ...

Here I said for the first time that sudden death would be best: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 1&t=45582 and that is something we all arent doing.

You are trying to tell the peaople what you understand, but not what I have written!

Show me ONE quote where I said my way is better - just ONE?

If you can't do that I have every right to ask you to shut up, if you do I will appologize and never say anything about that again!

Your turn!


Bye
Ingo

[Graham Banks]

.....I argue - you jump in from time to time because you feel attacked.........

No - it's just that I don't agree that there's a right way or a wrong way, or that your way is better than anybody else's.

Again you stripped my question for arguments ...

Here I said for the first time that sudden death would be best: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 1&t=45582 and that is something we all arent doing.

You are trying to tell the peaople what you understand, but not what I have written!

Show me ONE quote where I said my way is better - just ONE?

If you can't do that I have avery right to ask you to shut up, if you do I will appologize and never say anything about that again!

Your turn!


Bye
Ingo

Personally, I think that sudden death time controls would give a lower quality of games than either incremental or repeating time controls.
Quality of chess is an important factor to myself and also to many others I'd imagine.

[michiguel]

.....I argue - you jump in from time to time because you feel attacked.........

No - it's just that I don't agree that there's a right way or a wrong way, or that your way is better than anybody else's.

As an author, I like to see diversity. I like to see every muscle of my engine to be tested, otherwise, bugs/issues will never see the light. If a rating list tests repeating TCs, I'd like to see another one testing with increments, if one tests with fixed books, I'd like to see another one testing with own books. If one tests single core, I'd like to see another doing SMP etc. Now that Leo's list is gone, I would like to see any who will pick some of the characteristics of that one. Learning on, own book, ponder on, etc. Otherwise, those features will never be tested for new authors.

Miguel

[Graham Banks]

.....I argue - you jump in from time to time because you feel attacked.........

No - it's just that I don't agree that there's a right way or a wrong way, or that your way is better than anybody else's.

As an author, I like to see diversity. I like to see every muscle of my engine to be tested, otherwise, bugs/issues will never see the light. If a rating list tests repeating TCs, I'd like to see another one testing with increments, if one tests with fixed books, I'd like to see another one testing with own books. If one tests single core, I'd like to see another doing SMP etc. Now that Leo's list is gone, I would like to see any who will pick some of the characteristics of that one. Learning on, own book, ponder on, etc. Otherwise, those features will never be tested for new authors.

Miguel

Well said and I agree.

[Modern Times]

As an author, I like to see diversity. I like to see every muscle of my engine to be tested, otherwise, bugs/issues will never see the light. If a rating list tests repeating TCs, I'd like to see another one testing with increments, if one tests with fixed books, I'd like to see another one testing with own books. If one tests single core, I'd like to see another doing SMP etc. Now that Leo's list is gone, I would like to see any who will pick some of the characteristics of that one. Learning on, own book, ponder on, etc. Otherwise, those features will never be tested for new authors.

Miguel

Very good points. Doesn't SSDF do what you mention in your last sentence ?

[IWB]

.....I argue - you jump in from time to time because you feel attacked.........

No - it's just that I don't agree that there's a right way or a wrong way, or that your way is better than anybody else's.

Again you stripped my question for arguments ...

Here I said for the first time that sudden death would be best: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 1&t=45582 and that is something we all arent doing.

You are trying to tell the peaople what you understand, but not what I have written!

Show me ONE quote where I said my way is better - just ONE?

If you can't do that I have avery right to ask you to shut up, if you do I will appologize and never say anything about that again!

Your turn!


Bye
Ingo

Personally, I think that sudden death time controls would give a lower quality of games than either incremental or repeating time controls.
Quality of chess is an important factor to myself and also to many others I'd imagine.

Sorry, as you accused me of saying that 'inrements is better' than repeating time controls (see on top) I have to insist and repeat my question:

Show me ONE quote where I said my way is better - just ONE?

If you can't do that I have every right to ask you to shut up, if you do I will appologize and never say anything about that again!

thanks fo ranswering that.

Ingo

[Graham Banks]

Sorry, as you accused me of saying that 'inrements is better' than repeating time controls (see on top) I have to insist and repeat my question:

Show me ONE quote where I said my way is better - just ONE?

If you can't do that I have every right to ask you to shut up, if you do I will appologize and never say anything about that again!

thanks fo ranswering that.

Ingo

Larry wrote
I think it's time for CEGT and CCRL to seriously consider switching to increment play. Repeating time control play is obsolete for both humans and computers

You replied
Ahhh ... !!! Repeating time controls are played because analog clocks could not add increments. Nowadays it a a crusted tradition which is played because people in chess clubs play it because when they entered the club it was played like this ... it as a bad habit which is hard to wipe out!

Thx for your statement
Ingo

And elsewhere you wrote
But why 40/x? Why not 20/x or 10/x or 1/x? 40/x is because it was always that way. There is no other reason and that is why I called it "crusted" (I think that picture wors only in german).
As all programm use that x in 40/x individually the time control is nothing else then helping the engines/authors to play best chess within the given time. As time is part of the game if should be hanlded by the engine and not by the testers!
Thinking that helping to an end the logical time control would be 1/x as here the engine always now how much time it has for a single move.

Bye
Ingo

However, as I said, you do a great job and I don't think that you need to change. Just as there's no need for anybody else to change.
Now please stop trying to pick a fight because that was never my intention. Have a nice evening.