Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 09:51:45 09/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 1998 at 00:31:44, James B. Shearer wrote: > I play a lot on ICC and I like the fact that there are always crafty clones >available to play. I would not like to see them limited. Hopefully as a paying >customer my view will have some weight with the ICC powers that be. I think that this viewpoint has a huge amount of weight, which is fine, in my opinion. ICC is going to organize things for the benefit of the paying customers, and this is exactly what you'd expect. You can't really say that they are being nice to us by allowing free accounts for automatic experimental computers, because I am sure that the computers are also a draw for them (even if just a few people paid specifically to play the computers, it would be a win from their point of view), but I think that it is logical that things are set up for the benefit of the humans, rather than for the benefit of those who see ICC as a large pool of engine testers. > In this regard I would like to thank the operator of MrsLovett, against >which I have played hundreds of games, for allowing lower ranked players like >myself to play. I also should thank Bruce Moreland for allowing unrated games >against Ferret. No problem. > Regarding unrated games, it is said that the highest ranked humans on ICC >never play rated games against computers. Perhaps this is due in part to fear >of damaging their ratings. Allowing unrated games might entice some of these >players. Perhaps part of the reason Crafty is seeing fewer games against strong >humans is that the strong humans have learned that playing crafty damages their >rating. Playing the computers at the same kind of time controls they use against other humans would certainly damage their rating. > Regarding playing weaker opponents, while it is obviously true that such >players are less likely to beat strong programs such as crafty, I expect losses >to such players are likely to be more instructive than losses to stronger >opponents as they are more likely to be due to really poor computer play. Probably true. It might be worth it to waste time winning 95% of the games in order to get the more interesting remaining 5%. > As for the authors of other programs instead of complaining about crafty >clones why not match your program against them. Also a weak program like >amateur will naturally be of less interest to the strongest players. Btw why >not allow amateur to play bullet games if you want more games? If you don't play against mine, I will seek you out and play against yours, if your formula allows it. I regularly look to see if there are any home-brews on there and play some games against them. It's hard to figure out which ones are home-brews, but if you think it is bad now, you should have been around before the "(C)" was in "who". You had to do a "who", and an "=computer", and run down the list and compare with your eyeballs in order to figure out which computers were on. bruce
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.