Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:21:00 03/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 1999 at 14:34:22, Mark Young wrote: [snip] >I wish I was, but Hiarcs7 was banned from playing only because it was too >strong. If I played a program that would have lost some games, or Hiarcs7 just >had same bad luck and lost a few of the first 11 games....I would not have had a >problem. I see no other way to look at it, The admin did not like my rating of >2900+, because he said so, when the other programs were in the low 2500's. > >What make no sense was, I had only played 11 games and my rating was >provisional. My round score was still in the 110 to 120 range....I just wish >people would understand how ratings worked.........because they jumped the gun >big time by taking that action at all, not to say after only 11 games. > >It would be very hard to keep a rating over 400 points higher then the rest of >the ratings pool, as I am sure you know. My rating would have dropped because >after my rating is none provisional and if I am still over 400 points higher >over the other members in the ratings pool, no matter who I played, I could gain >no rating points and I could only lose rating points to the member of the >ratings pool. And as good as Hiarcs7 is it will not win 100% of its games >against other 2500+ programs. > >It makes no sense what they did........ If this report is true, then it sounds like good "ad copy" for Mark U. Do they have any place you can find this formal announcement or any official statement to show that it is truly the case? Are you sure that you did not cheese them off and get the boot for some other reason?
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.