Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:19:48 07/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2001 at 17:12:00, Albert Silver wrote: >On July 10, 2001 at 16:07:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 10, 2001 at 11:41:33, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On July 10, 2001 at 11:09:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 10, 2001 at 08:50:20, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 10, 2001 at 08:48:09, Chessfun wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Since the Spitfire message, why not a Scrappy one. >>>>>> >>>>>>Seems Spitfire caught the draw bug. >>>>>> >>>>>>Recent games of SpitFire: >>>>> >>>>>Opps >>>>>77: - 3379 W 3223 Mecking [ br 5 7] B22 Mat Jul 10 01 08:24 >>>> >>>> >>>>Mecking can certainly be a problem when he wants to be. :) >>>> >>>>Bob >>> >>>I just want to take advantage of this moment to congratulate you on your great >>>achievement. I realize it has been a long and hard climb as you aspired >>>incessantly to the highest ranks. And now, after all your efforts, and having >>>paid your dues (i.e. the last installment on the Quad), YOU (= Quad + Crafty + >>>breathtaking formula) have finally reached that most coveted of places in the >>>sun: the ICC blitz no. 1 !! Yes! Now Crafty can say it is the best of the >>>best... AGAIN! Brothers, sisters, let us join hands and rejoice! >>> >>>Why the very honor of having my modest post linked to yours is one I will >>>cherish for the rest of my days, oh great >>>quad-plus-crafty-plus-breathtaking-formula account owner you! Could I humbly ask >>>for a scanned image of the creditcard receipt that made all this possible? It >>>would be given a place of honor in the forthcoming site in the "How it all >>>started" section . >>> >>> Albert >> >> >>:) >> >>Seems that "scrappy" is a continual cause for conversation. As I said before, >>I ran it as an experiment, then I terminated it, and was greeted by lots of >>messages (and a few emails) asking for "scrappy" to return. Too many computers >>continually playing Crafty. Or if it is free, computer operators jump in as >>soon as a human game ends. I gave up on trying to stop this since some are just >>going to be discourteous no matter what. >> >>Scrappy solves the problem. It plays the kind of opponent I want to see games >>against (human GMs). It doesn't play with computers. And it does, on occasion, >>sit idle for long periods of time. >> >>All ok by me of course... >> >>I don't care whether it is ranked #1 or #1000. Any more than I care about >>the rating of "crafty". I only care to see it slowly improve, which is the >>goal for playing on ICC. If I decided to stop working on the program for a >>while, it would disappear from ICC for that time... > >I remember when you explained the purpose of the experiment, which by your own >words is now over. As the purpose is now to simply allow a human-only Crafty >running, independent of ranking, could you change the formula to allow strong >humans to play that aren't necessarily in the 400 point range? Such as a cutoff >range of 2600-2700 up? This would allow less dexterous GMs to have a shot at it >also. And if they score points, you'll still learn from how they did it. > > Albert I will do this. I think I will try a rating cap of > 2600 for simplicity. But I suspect this will lead to more complaints as a few IMs will play it over and over trying the usual anti-computer stuff... With them at 2600 and scrappy at 3400, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain... And since the 3200-level GMs have their hands full, will they play it if it is rated 3000 or so? Probably not, ie they hardly ever play Crafty now... It's a catch-22. When winboard protocol version 3 comes out, this will be fixable as I will be able to limit the number of consecutive games and cut some of that out.
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.