Faster testing ?

[lkaufman]

Ok I get your point but i'd be curious to see some stats on the subject (match lenght, tpye of draws...).
Sudden-death matches can also suffer from blunder in end game or failure to find a mate sequence being too short on time and living on a small increment...

I guess I shall work on sudden death + incr in Minic anyway...

As long as the base to increment ratio is reasonable, there should be no more risk of making bad moves in the endgame than in the middlegame, since on average you get a lot more depth in the endgame in the same time, and also because the chance of the result still being in doubt is lower. Rating lists seem to have settled on 100 to 1 for the ratio, while tournaments like CCC and TCEC usually use larger ratios, close to the 180 or 240 ratios typical of human GM events. We mostly use 150 to 1 ratio as a compromise between these ratios in our own testing.

I see more human tournaments using delay. When playing at fast time controls. Is this something that will be implemented in computer chess?

No need to implement delay for computers since they don't have a reaction time like humans, and a computer moves pieces at instant speed.

I don't agree. Delay is an alternative to increment, with its own advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that it does not reward the superior side for playing aimless moves to build up his time to find the win; the main disadvantage is that the quality of play is lower since you cannot make easy moves quickly to spend more time on hard moves. I don't have a real preference, but it's not a clear-cut answer as to which way is better.