{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/glinscott/fishtest/issues/75","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/glinscott/fishtest/issues/75/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/glinscott/fishtest/issues/75/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/glinscott/fishtest/issues/75/events","html_url":"https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/pull/75","id":121576849,"number":75,"title":"Change LTC to 60+0.6","user":{"login":"zamar","id":2694706,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2694706?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar","html_url":"https://github.com/zamar","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":6,"created_at":"2015-12-10T21:03:42Z","updated_at":"2015-12-11T09:19:08Z","closed_at":null,"pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/glinscott/fishtest/pulls/75","html_url":"https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/pull/75","diff_url":"https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/pull/75.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/pull/75.patch"},"body":"100+1 is just taking too long to be practical."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/glinscott/fishtest/issues/comments/163883493","html_url":"https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/pull/75#issuecomment-163883493","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/glinscott/fishtest/issues/75","id":163883493,"user":{"login":"zamar","id":2694706,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2694706?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar","html_url":"https://github.com/zamar","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/zamar/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-12-11T09:19:08Z","updated_at":"2015-12-11T09:19:08Z","body":"In the future, I think that the correct course of action is to raise the\ntime control bit by bit - if we can afford it.\n\nOn Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Joona Kiiski <joona.kiiski@gmail.com>\nwrote:\n\n> Marco: In case hpf2 passes at 60+0.6 it is a confirmation that TC is not\n> enough (because it was going to fail at 100+1).\n>\n> No, it's not. It's just a nature of stochastical tests.\n>\n> Marco: We can also act as we don't care or assume it does not exists, but\n> actually from 60 to 100 it makes a difference and we will see it soon.\n>\n> There is no way to reliably observe the impact.\n>\n> Marco: IMO this patch does not add anything above original LTC apart from\n> games that last longer.\n>\n> It's a compromise. Where did you get the idea that only base time matters\n> and increment does not? Lucas proved long time ago that using increment\n> results in higher quality games. So using 60+0.6 over 60+0.05 is a major\n> boost. The former plays at least 100 elo stronger chess than the latter.\n>\n> Marco: This is a political patch, not a technical one.\n>\n> It's a practical patch. The framework was becoming overloaded with 100+1\n> tests running forever and hogging up all the resources.\n>\n> If we reach the point where we consistently have ~350 cpu cores running on\n> the framework, then we can switch back\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Marco Costalba <notifications@github.com>\n> wrote:\n>\n>> In case hpf2 passes at 60+0.6 it is a confirmation that TC is not enough\n>> (because it was going to fail at 100+1).\n>>\n>> We can also act as we don't care or assume it does not exists, but\n>> actually\n>> from 60 to 100 it makes a difference and we will see it soon.\n>>\n>> IMO this patch does not add anything above original LTC apart from games\n>> that last longer.\n>>\n>> So it would be even better to return to the original 60+0.05, but if we\n>> want to do some serious action for TC scaling than I am sorry for people\n>> using fishtest as their quick slot machine, but we have to do something\n>> better.\n>>\n>> Of course we can also decide that we just want to have fun with fishtest\n>> and not caring about longer TC, but this patch is totally useless, much\n>> better to revert to original TC: or you do something or you don't.\n>>\n>> This is a political patch, not a technical one.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:07 AM, VoyagerOne <notifications@github.com>\n>> wrote:\n>>\n>> > should I stop hpf2...or let it continue?\n>> >\n>> > —\n>> > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub\n>> > <https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/pull/75#issuecomment-163791884>.\n>>\n>> >\n>>\n>> —\n>> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub\n>> <https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/pull/75#issuecomment-163847934>.\n>>\n>\n>\n"}}