help bot wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:27 pm, David Richerby
wrote:
wrote:
[...] given the determination of organizers to use sudden-death, it
was the best anyone could come up with.

Well, you want there to be a fixed time when the next round starts,
right? The only options are sudden-death time controls or
adjournments.


Wrong. There is another possibility which
still yields a "fixed time" for the start of the
next round; it's called adjudication.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Back in the old days, there were serious
problems with adjudication, including bias
on the part of the adjudicator which might
have him granting, say, Jose Capablanca a
draw where he has given Joe Patzer a loss.
But today, we have the answer to personal
bias: computers. It also just so happens
that the /strongest/ chess players in the
world are reasonably inexpensive programs,
and many tournament directors already
have a notebook computer handy, for their
pairings program. In addition, there are
sites on the internet which give easy
access to some basic endgame table-
bases (although of limited use for now).


-- help bot


Nonsense. Adjudication is the worst possible solution. Computer
evaluations are simplistic, useful evaluation might take hours or
days, and deciding the result of a game on the basis of a computer
program's valuation of .1 of a pawn plus or minus is moronic.
Fortunately, there is zero chance of such a suggestion being taken
seriously.