Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:37:24 11/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 1999 at 13:59:38, Will Singleton wrote: >On November 29, 1999 at 12:32:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >Hello Vincent! Nice to hear from you. > >> >>Then the current experiment i modified [Moron's] formula for blitz: >> !computer & rating >= 2200 >> > >When I set up the list, I decided upon a couple of restrictions for accounts. >One (as noted in the GL post) says that accounts that restrict computer play >(too severely) are not eligible. Your own account is more restricted than moron is! Mood = 0: formula = "(( mood=0 & ( ( (blitz | bullet) & (time>=1 & time<=5 & inc=2) & ((rating > myrating - 400) | !rated) ) | (standard & inc>1 & inc < 11 & rating >= 1900) ) )| (mood=1 & standard & inc>1 & rating >= 1900)) & !wild & (!computer | rating > 2300)" moron allows *all blitz* levels which sometimes profit huge from this. The only restriction is that computers are not allowed rated at blitz, as i can easily proof that the blitz rating of moron then is for 95% dependant upon its score against crafty instead of against 'mean and rotten' humans. At blitz you're allowing only: 3 2, 4 2, 5 2 that's rather fast for humanity. >>Now currently the vars of secret (diep linux not the newest version >>though but regurarly updated) is next: >> >> formula = "autocolor & !freeweek & !wild & >>(rating>=2200+300*blitz|rating>=2300&time<=3&inc=0) & >>((time<=5&inc<=3)|(standard&etime<=60)) & (!computer | unrated)" >> Channels: 64 194 >> interface="xboard 4.0.3 + diep" >> >>So basically playing all players above 2500 at blitz if not a computer. >>I wonder why neither Moron nor Secret is in the list of Will. >>Comments will? Has it to do with the fact that both are dual machines? > > >Secret isn't included because of the !computer, and also because this account >tends to change programs. Dual machines are ok. that's not true anymore. Last months it didn't switch and in the foreseeable future it won't either. >> >> >>I mean: Judgeturpin is a 266PII getting 5 ply sometimes 6 ply in blitz. >>Hard to take ratings based upon a 5 or 6 ply serious! > >Playing against JT regularly, I notice it gets 8 ply in most situations. Sweeny >has said that it will very infrequently limit itself to 6 ply, but indicates >that this seems like a bug, and it doesn't do well when that happens. This is the wrong approach. Sure it gets 8 ply in most endgames or more. However if you get say 10 moves after each other 6 ply in the middlegame, then i'm not happy. Chess is a game of weakest chain. If you get 6 ply when tactics are most needed, then you're smoked usual. I only look to the depths diep gets at crucial (tactical) moments. Sure if a move is predicted and a recapture it's a lot easier to get deep... Basically your list is based upon the programs you play against with Amateur rated a lot: 1 2483 JudgeTurpi 2444 Amateur 1-0 [ br 5 3] C65 Res 28-Nov-99 2 2460 Amateur 2467 JudgeTurpi 0-1 [ br 5 3] D29 Res 28-Nov-99 3 2476 Amateur 2479 JudgeTurpi 0-1 [ br 5 3] B40 Mat 27-Nov-99 4 2326 Amateur 2487 JudgeTurpi 1-0 [ sr 15 2] A16 Res 25-Nov-99 5 2512 JudgeTurpi 2301 Amateur 1-0 [ sr 15 2] C99 Res 25-Nov-99 6 2492 JudgeTurpi 2542 Amateur 1-0 [ br 5 3] B42 Res 25-Nov-99 7 2562 Amateur 2472 JudgeTurpi 1-0 [ br 5 3] C05 Mat 25-Nov-99 8 2516 Amateur 2478 JudgeTurpi 0-1 [ bu 5 3] B40 Fla 16-Nov-99 9 2478 JudgeTurpi 2516 Amateur 1-0 [ bu 5 3] C92 Res 16-Nov-99 10 2516 Amateur 2478 JudgeTurpi = [ bu 5 3] C99 50 16-Nov-99 11 2440 Amateur 2496 JudgeTurpi 1-0 [ br 5 3] B33 Res 13-Nov-99 12 2516 JudgeTurpi 2420 Amateur 1-0 [ br 5 3] D00 Res 13-Nov-99 13 2462 Amateur 2545 JudgeTurpi 0-1 [ br 5 3] A11 Mat 13-Nov-99 14 2415 Amateur 2531 JudgeTurpi 0-1 [ br 5 3] A17 Mat 13-Nov-99 15 2434 Amateur 2518 JudgeTurpi 0-1 [ br 5 3] B86 Mat 13-Nov-99 16 2505 JudgeTurpi 2447 Amateur = [ br 5 3] D86 Rep 13-Nov-99 17 2351 Amateur 2534 JudgeTurpi 0-1 [ br 5 2] D29 Mat 12-Nov-99 18 2525 JudgeTurpi 2360 Amateur 0-1 [ br 5 2] D15 Fla 12-Nov-99 19 2311 Amateur 2550 JudgeTurpi 0-1 [ br 5 3] A09 Mat 11-Nov-99 >>What is R for kind of function. Why not >>apply it at standard levels too? >Function is described in the post. I will do STD list in the future (one thing >at a time). >Will
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.