Why not ultra long time control ?

[Henk]

If you are using chess engines only for analysis then you are not interested which engines find best moves within few minutes but you want to know what is best move even if that takes many hours.

So results of tournaments with ultra long time control may be more interesting for serious chess players.

[Modern Times]

Why not ultra long time control ? The answer is obvious. It requires massive resource to run a statistically meaningful number of games.

[Henk]

And if it need not be statistical meaningful ? For instance just a match of say 24 games between two engines just to see what happens.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

If you are using chess engines only for analysis then you are not interested which engines find best moves within few minutes but you want to know what is best move even if that takes many hours.

So results of tournaments with ultra long time control may be more interesting for serious chess players.

mostly, the engines make the same mistakes at LTC they make at 1 min.

current SF is better at 1 min. than SF 7 at 1 hr.

make the conclusions yourself.

[Henk]

Might be that Skipper of four years ago might play better than Stockfish 8 on ultra long time control. I haven't tried yet for I have no extra computer.

[Henk]

If you are using chess engines only for analysis then you are not interested which engines find best moves within few minutes but you want to know what is best move even if that takes many hours.

So results of tournaments with ultra long time control may be more interesting for serious chess players.

mostly, the engines make the same mistakes at LTC they make at 1 min.

current SF is better at 1 min. than SF 7 at 1 hr.

make the conclusions yourself.

Actually I was thinking about 12 or 24 hours per move.

[Henk]

So users willing to spend days on analysis have no clue which engine is best for that task. Because there is no data and why assume that engine with highest rating would be best for long term analysis.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

If you are using chess engines only for analysis then you are not interested which engines find best moves within few minutes but you want to know what is best move even if that takes many hours.

So results of tournaments with ultra long time control may be more interesting for serious chess players.

mostly, the engines make the same mistakes at LTC they make at 1 min.

current SF is better at 1 min. than SF 7 at 1 hr.

make the conclusions yourself.

Actually I was thinking about 12 or 24 hours per move.

TC does not matter.
give SF 2 days, 10 days or 100 days, it will still prune the same lines and hit the very same eval nodes.

[Henk]

If you are using chess engines only for analysis then you are not interested which engines find best moves within few minutes but you want to know what is best move even if that takes many hours.

So results of tournaments with ultra long time control may be more interesting for serious chess players.

mostly, the engines make the same mistakes at LTC they make at 1 min.

current SF is better at 1 min. than SF 7 at 1 hr.

make the conclusions yourself.

Actually I was thinking about 12 or 24 hours per move.

TC does not matter.
give SF 2 days, 10 days or 100 days, it will still prune the same lines and hit the very same eval nodes.

That means SF is not suitable for it prunes too much. For instance if you would use plain alpha beta you can assume moves getting better when giving more time for it searches deeper and no moves are pruned.

[Dann Corbit]

If you are using chess engines only for analysis then you are not interested which engines find best moves within few minutes but you want to know what is best move even if that takes many hours.

So results of tournaments with ultra long time control may be more interesting for serious chess players.

I agree with you. I would like to see the chess at correspondence time controls using a raft of 64 core monsters with access to enormous RAM and tablebase resource.

If you had enough 64 core machines, you could run all the pairings simultaneously.

There are, unfortunately, two problems. The first one is the millions of dollars it would cost. The second is that nobody has any patience. Even if you had 128 machines and 32 entrants, the contest could still take over one year to complete.

So, tragically, it will never happen.