IWB wrote: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 Repeating time control play is obsolete for both humans and computers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.
Yep. I showed several reasons and argument why I dont like repeating time controls but I don't see a single point where I said that my
Graham Banks wrote:... way is better than anybody else's.
I don't pick a fight but just show that your statement (which you stripped accidently from the quoteing) is false!
IWB wrote: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.
Yep. I showed several reasons and argument why I dont like repeating time controls but I don't see a single point where I said that my
Graham Banks wrote:... way is better than anybody else's.
I don't pick a fight but just show that your statement (which you stripped accidently from the quoteing) is false!
Bye
Ingo
This sort of thing is the side of computer chess that I don't like.
Sorry if you felt I was deliberately picking a fight. I guess others can judge whether or not they think that I was.
Have a nice day and keep up your good work.
michiguel wrote:
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 ?
But the number of engines they test is very limited. Way too limited.
Graham Banks wrote:
This sort of thing is the side of computer chess that I don't like.
Sorry if you felt I was deliberately picking a fight. I guess others can judge whether or not they think that I was.
Have a nice day and keep up your good work.
Sorry again, but now you are gracious and liberal but here:
After 'ipontificating' (which I did not comment) and 'preaching' accusations (in a argument where we are not talking about you and you jump in without an argument) you strip ALL my arguing against it and come up with the next accusation (and until now no arguments, which I dont wait for anymore).
That is not trying to pick a fight? Sorry, english is not my motherlanguage but for me you seems to be very agressive and against everything I wrote. You NEVER tried to argue with it you always come up with some condescend wording which is something I NEVER did (and can't because of my limitations in english)
Graham Banks wrote:
This sort of thing is the side of computer chess that I don't like.
Sorry if you felt I was deliberately picking a fight. I guess others can judge whether or not they think that I was.
Have a nice day and keep up your good work.
Sorry again, but now you are gracious and liberal but here:
After 'ipontificating' (which I did not comment) and 'preaching' accusations (in a argument where we are not talking about you and you jump in without an argument) you strip ALL my arguing against it and come up with the next accusation (and until now no arguments, which I dont wait for anymore).
That is not trying to pick a fight? Sorry, english is not my motherlanguage but for me you seems to be very agressive and against everything I wrote. You NEVER tried to argue with it you always come up with some condescend wording which is something I NEVER did (and can't because of my limitations in english)
I am fed up, sorry!
Ingo
The only reason this silly and useless argument even came up was because you have someone grasping at straws wanting to blame time controls for the reason Houdini is No.1 by the distance he is. I have said more than once that is why Robert is No. 1. He doesn't care if it is repeating or incremental- he knows all comers are gonna get their asses kicked either way. He doesn't look for excuses- he doesn't need them. 40/40 and 40/20 are extremely reliable. In blitz, 40/4 is extremely reliable. I use it most for blitz. But I also use 4m+2s. It too is reliable. Depends on the mood I'm in. If someone is at odds with my controls at the time, skip over my threads. Like I give a shit. You guys are giving a new meaning to wasting bandwidth. Give it a rest.
The only reason this silly and useless argument even came up was because you have someone grasping at straws wanting to blame time controls for the reason Houdini is No.1 by the distance he is.
...
???
Normaly I get accusations that I manipulate to make something better or worse but this accusation is absolutly ludicrous (like that word)
Sorry, but read again, you have absolutly NO idea!
The only reason this silly and useless argument even came up was because you have someone grasping at straws wanting to blame time controls for the reason Houdini is No.1 by the distance he is.
...
???
Normaly I get accusations that I manipulate to make something better or worse but this accusation is absolutly ludicrous (like that word). That was for sure a point which NEVER crossed my mind during the whole disscussion.
Sorry, but read again, you have absolutly NO idea!
The only reason this silly and useless argument even came up was because you have someone grasping at straws wanting to blame time controls for the reason Houdini is No.1 by the distance he is.
...
???
Normaly I get accusations that I manipulate to make something better or worse but this accusation is absolutly ludicrous (like that word)
Sorry, but read again, you have absolutly NO idea!
Ingo
Are you delusional? How do you read an accusation ag. you into what I stated. The only stupid thing you did was letting someone who can't find anything else- so he blames the distance from Houdini on time controls- suck you and CCRL into an argument when there was not a damn thing to argue over. Maybe you're not getting enough rest.
The only reason this silly and useless argument even came up was because you have someone grasping at straws wanting to blame time controls for the reason Houdini is No.1 by the distance he is.
...
???
Normaly I get accusations that I manipulate to make something better or worse but this accusation is absolutly ludicrous (like that word)
Sorry, but read again, you have absolutly NO idea!
Ingo
Are you delusional? How do you read an accusation ag. you into what I stated. The only stupid thing you did was letting someone who can't find anything else- so he blames the distance from Houdini on time controls- suck you and CCRL into an argument when there was not a damn thing to argue over. Maybe you're not getting enough rest.
gts
*Sigh*
And this is why Durandal is tested at fixed time per move.
