Author: Chessfun
Date: 21:29:49 07/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2001 at 22:06:54, Curtis Williams wrote: >>I don't think it's "general practice" at all. For example, my program is set >>to play anyone rated over 1800. That's about 800 points below its current >>rating. >> >The specifics of your formula and the preference of Mr. Morelands formula is of >no concern to me. The Spitfire account is a PAID account and that means that I >can configure the formula to MY preference. I read how Mr. Moreland has ran his >account over the years and how he restricts it in certain mannners to his >liking. Now who am I to blast him on how he runs his paid acccount? ICC gives >you the liberty to do that when you pay a years membership. So how you run your >account is besides the point. > > >>According to spitfire's formula it will only play *humans*. Perhaps that's >>what you mean by "anyone"? > >Of course it is a human account, it's in my finger notes and if I chose to play >computers I would be the number one comp/comp account because I have the fastest >single processor on ICC. I respect the right for anyone to assign any formula they choose to what is their account. And also congratulate you on the success of your combination of program and cpu. While you may have a fast processor you only started playing humans a couple of months back and being number 1 in comp v comp and leaving your program online as you currently do, is much different. I have no problem with Spitfire being #1 makes little difference to me, but I don't believe you would be able to maintain a rating of over 3100 playing comp v comp with a -350 rating 24 hours a day. Saying Spitfire would be the top comp v comp program on ICC is IMO just wishful thinking. Many currently have single cpu's as fast and there are also a number of SMP machines running Deep Shredder's and Deep Fritz's. Sarah. >My enjoyment is watching GMs play my account, ask >yourself which would you prefer? Watch boring comp/comp games which I could >generate at anytime offline or watching the elite of the sport play your account >then analyzing the games? My account is no differnt from an account that >doesn't play 3 0 and 5 0. Just operator preference. >>>Your inflammed comments toward a simple post of progress suggest that you have a >>>hidden resentment towards Tiger and Crafty (programs with the ability to >>>interface with ICC) is it that you would like to see you program make it to >>>number? Whatever the case, don't blast my post because of your jealousies. >>>Tune your energy into something more constructive like creating a more >>>competitive program and maybe it too will make it to number one on ICC. >> >>This comment is preposterous. I guess you're just trolling for responses? > >I'll put it blunt...Noone likes a kiss ass! > >>I'm not sure I'd call it *your* progress. Tiger is a great program, but all >>you did was set a restrictive formula. > >Progress in the sense that it's likely that your program will never make it to >the top ten with your current formula. Winning is what chess is all about, I >didn't pay for a computer account to play around with the reserve/novice group, >I got it to win. The very nature of chess requires one to be a winner. So I >guess you'll never advance beyond 1800 with your current set up. >> >>Andrew
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.