On Mar 23, 8:07 am, wrote:

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.

Nonsense. Adjudication is the worst possible solution.


Whiff! You missed the point, fella.

I was merely correcting a clumsy error by David
Richerby, who flatly stated that there were only
two options which allow for a fixed starting time
for the next round (see above).

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

I do not recommend adjudications, though I
will point out how their use is no longer plagued
by problems like personal bias, since computers
can handle the job /objectively/.


Computer evaluations are simplistic


Sounds a lot like human evaluations...


, useful evaluation might take hours or
days


Um, no. In reality, computers can surpass
the quality of human evaluations in about a
five seconds or so. Still, nobody's perfect.


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.


I agree that your jibberish is moronic. In my
experience, some top programs can normally
draw where the position score is several times
that number. Obviously, the rules would have
to be laid down /in advance/, and agreed to by
the participants. I vote for Rybka, with a win/
draw cutoff of 0.7, and analysis time of five
minutes. (Remember, while there will be rare
cases in which the adjudication is erroneous,
this is at least better than allowing human bias
to completely muck up the works.)


Fortunately, there is zero chance of such a suggestion being taken
seriously.


No kidding. Your idiocy lacked a source
for the 0.1 figure, for starters, which you
seem to have simply pulled out of your own
hindquarters. One could do much, much
better by simply asking the programmer to
suggest a number offhand. Duh!


-- help bot