Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 05:34:16 09/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2003 at 03:47:30, Richard Pijl wrote: >On September 29, 2003 at 23:58:00, Steven Edwards wrote: > >>On September 29, 2003 at 23:23:22, Jon Dart wrote: >> >>>Re having an alternate chess server: sure, maybe. But there's a critical mass >>>problem. ICC and FICS succeded because they have a large pool of players and >>>some suitable opponent is almost always available, whatever time of day or night >>>you are online. If you can't get enough participants to achieve that, then it's >>>not likely to catch on, IMO. >> >>Point taken. At the moment my machinery is generating over 20 SETI@home work >>units a day and that can be trimmed considerably to provide some computing power >>to run a few "always connected" programs, like my old program Spector, my new, >>upcoming program Symbolic, and a local version of Crafty. >> >>Re comments on pool size: my idea is to go for quality vs quantity. >> >>Because the proposed FICS is for authors only, it can be customized to better >>support program players than is the case at other servers. Examples: >> >>1. Multiple accounts for different program versions by the same author. >> >>2. Account attribute data includes hardware and software configuration items. >> >>3. Local copies of opening books and tablebases could be used. >> >>4. Availability of a more program-friendly formatted set of commands and status >>I/O; possible elimination of FICS features unneeded for program usage. >> >>5. Program authors' suggestions for feature set enhancement are taken seriously. >> >>6. A facility for periodic mailing of the rating list; also, periodic mailing >>all PGN game scores for those accounts that allow disbursement of the score >>data. >> >>7. The possibility of automated pairings, matches, and tournament organization; >>programs could check the server periodically to see if they've been paired and >>when and with whom the game is scheduled. Post-event tourament score >>crosstables could be automatically mailed. >> >>8. The possibility of the server taking an active role in initiating a session >>with a remote progarm if the program's account has authorize such usage. >> > > >This feature set sounds very nice. > >One of the current problem I have with computer accounts on e.g. ICC is that it >often takes quite a while before the engine gets a match request. Most of the >times from a strong, commercial clone account or a relatively weak human player. >True, I only leave it unattended for longer periods during night-time (in >Europe) but these are not really the type of games I would like the Baron to >play (although lost/drawn games against weaker human players are educational, >they don't occur that often). The possibility of server initiated matches >(against similar strength accounts) would be great. > >Richard. > >>>On a technical note: a version of FICS source was released years ago (on the U. >>>of Pittsburgh site I think) but IIRC it was BSD-based and at the time I couldn't >>>easily get it to run on a commercial UNIX. So you might need to do some hacking >>>on it. Maybe FICS itself has something cleaner, but if so they haven't released >>>it, as far as I know. >> >>I've seen the FICS 1.7.4 sources. I might wind up writing my own version using >>my toolkit for all the chess specific items. /agree. It would also be interesting to set up some sort of multi game match, e.g. Baron and Zappa agree to play an 8 game 300+3 match, or 2 games at 15 0, or whatever. It might require some extensions to Xboard/Arena/whatnot, but it would be interesting. anthony
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.