Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:40:32 03/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 1999 at 01:08:35, James B. Shearer wrote: >On March 17, 1999 at 14:33:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>It was not an 'intent'. I simply release the source to crafty. I didn't want >>to 'doctor' the source and remove the xboard compatibility code, as that would >>likely lead to lots of errors that were not wanted. There is _definitely_ a >>place for "crafty clones"... ie they provide ready opponents for everyone. But >>they are a 'drain' from the players for the real 'crafty' which directly affects >>the progress made there in a bad way... > > This is a bit different than your original statement. Also it still >seems a bit onesided. Don't some of the people running clones find and report >bugs to you? With a little coordination the numerous crafty clones would >provide you with more data rather than less. > James B. Shearer I would guess 1% of the 'clones' on the servers do this. which means 99% of the games are 'lost'. Which is not a problem normally, but if crafty sits idle most of the time, as it does now, it makes a difference. that was the only point. Best scenario would be a queue... you want to play crafty, you get 'crafty' if it is free, if not, you get crafty1, or crafty450, or whatever... that would totally solve the problem, but would require a lot of work to the server code, or it would require some sort of 'bot' user that would make all crafty's 'close' (not accept _any_ matches). Then everyone matches the 'bot' and it notifies the proper 'crafty' to issue that challenge to the player...
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.