Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:42:47 03/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 1999 at 00:54:52, Mark Young wrote: >On March 15, 1999 at 23:12:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >No this is not so, as you might know when you start a new account you don't >change the other players rating much because you are provisional. > > So I'm not >>sure of the 'point' of doing that, > >I played the strongest players on the server, I did not beat anyone program 11 >times. I thought your original post said you had played 2 computers? But it doesn't matter... > >and I can see why an admin would be >>'interested' in that the rating pool certainly gets zapped. > >How can their rating pool be zapped, I played the strongest players and if >hiarcs7 wins the games, then it should get that rating. because abuse is easy. Playing a program you beat repeatedly is one example, because it proves nothing, provides no useful data, and only inflates your rating. IE if you win all games against a program, what would be the _point_ in playing it? > > > Assuming the >>program you played had actually 'earned' its rating by playing the players on >>that server. If you beat it 11 games in a row > >I did not play one program, I just won 11 games in a row playing the strongest >players. Human or computer. > >, you probably depress its rating > >No the other programs rating did not change much at all, because I was >provisional. The admin was just upset because hiarcs7 keep on winning. it doesn't matter how much it changes, it changes. And if it changes at all, enough games will produce a _large_ change. > >>at least 200 points. which means that (assuming it is now 2200 when it was >>2400) now anybody playing it is playing a 2400 player with a 2200 rating, and >>_their_ rating is going to take a beating. > >Sorry wrong again, the programs I played were in the 2500+ range, and were still >in the 2500+ range when the admin stopped me from playing them. > That's not "wrong" because it was a simple _example_ with the numbers having nothing to do with your rating, just some numbers to explain a point... > >>Causing that kind of problem is _not_ what computer operators ought to want. > >I don't understand....I just got on the server, and I played the strongest >players on the sever, if I would have lost games there would not be a >problem..but hiarcs7 won...that caused the problem, there is no other way to >look at it. > >>Because it is only going to lead to computers being banned one day. > >Computers beating other computers on servers will cause programs to be banned >oneday....ok I see.... It has happened already. Several 'abusers' have been banned from ICC, from FICS, from chess.net, and so forth. And don't forget the USCF. Computers got too good, and they were summarily 'executed' in a way of thinking... > > IE go try >>to enter your program in a USCF event in the US. And find a tournament without >>an (NC) limitation. > >What does this have to do with Hiarcs7 being banned from playing other programs >a pay sever because it Won 11 game in a row. I played the stongest players on >the server, hiarcs7 won the games, because it wins the games I should force >Hiarcs7 to lose sometimes to keep from pissing of some jackass admin..... it has to do with human perception of what we are doing. We get to play and test in a remarkable environment. But only so long as the 'humans' want us to be there. And no longer. IE try to find a USCF event you can play in. Then look at the 1970's CL&R's to see how easy it was to play in them back then. _something_ happened. I watched it happen. I was right in the middle of it happening, in fact. > > We are "tolerated" on the servers, because we provide >>entertainment for a lot of GM players (and others that watch the games.) But >>if we start generating a lot of complaints (hey that 2200 program is killing >>2500 players and sucking their ratings down) then we won't be around very long. > > >Bob you are just being silly...Stop it. What you are saying then is play on the >chess servers, but don't play to well....or you might just piss off some human >player. > >Do you think Crafty should be banned from playing other programs and players, >even when the other accounts don't have a problem with it, and only because >crafty is winning. I here you say that crafty has a 80 to 90 % score against >some strong human players, should crafty be banned from playing those players >just because crafty is winning? there is a big difference. Crafty is 'passive'. It doesn't challenge _anybody_ and so can't possibly abuse anything. If you match other people or other programs in particular, you _can_ abuse the rating system. If someone complains about me abusing something, they look stupid, because _they_ matched crafty, not the other way around. Makes a big difference. I _never_ match other computers. As an example. I let them match me whenever they want. > >> >>And the danger there is greater than any gain made by beating some program 11 >>times. > >I played the strongest players on the server, Hiarcs7 won the games, those >programs had a rating better then 2500+. There is no way in hell you can defend >the action of this server after only 11 games. Hiarcs7 could lose any of those >game or the games I would have played after. > > We want to be quite, unobtrusive, and continue our debugging/testing. >>It won't take much to wreck that. It's already happened in tournament chess. >>It could easily happen in server chess as well. > >Here is the logic, We can play on the servers, but we better dame well throw >some games, or we all may be kicked off the server... If winning is being, not >quite and obstrusive, then what is the point of testing online anymore if we >must throw games...... no, and that server is nuts, as you have pointed out. But be aware that they can be 'nuts' if they want. And if we give them an execuse, we get 'nutted' out the door with no recourse of any kind. That we don't want. > >> >>Just an opinion... as many servers already are considering (or already have >>implemented) restrictions on what computers can do, to stop the computer vs >>computer stuff (or at least slow it down.) > >If the servers want to do this, that fine, but don't be a pay site and take >peoples money and accounts and banned them from playing just because they are >running a strong program.... When they have no rules against it and when they >allow computer accounts on the server, and there are other computer accounts on >the server. I have the opinion that _no_ computers should be allowed, except for the author or a team member. It serves no useful purpose. And it tends to cause some discussions and problems that could be done without. We want to remain a 'small' group, not a "bigger problem". > >Did you write a response to this posting to be silly, or just to counter my >posting even when you don't have a clue to what happend as seen from your >response? > >Mark Young Didn't intend to 'counter' your post at all, just wanted to point out that there are significant problems that _can_ arise, given the right circumstances. We don't need 'em...
This page took 0.01 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.