Author: Chessfun
Date: 10:15:04 10/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2000 at 10:54:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 05, 2000 at 00:46:08, Chessfun wrote: > >>On October 04, 2000 at 16:27:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 04, 2000 at 10:24:13, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>>On October 04, 2000 at 10:14:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 04, 2000 at 00:35:34, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 03, 2000 at 20:46:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Err.. exactly _what_ program won't kick a GM at blitz? I have seen GNU do it. >>>>>>>I have seen everybody else do it too... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This is hardly a distinguishing event. >>>>>> >>>>>>Dr. Hyatt, >>>>>> >>>>>>You are correct. One game does not mean much. Gambit Tiger made it look so >>>>>>easy though and Mecking made some decent moves. We will see how good this >>>>>>program is within the next six months. >>>>>> >>>>>>The audience that will be buying these type of programs will be most amused by >>>>>>the style of play of Gambit Tiger. I am certain that you would enjoy it too. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Tim Frohlick >>>>> >>>>>My impression after watching hundreds of games between the new beta versions >>>>>and Crafty is that it is very solid, has filled a couple of horrible endgame >>>>>holes in the previous version, but I have not noticed any tendency to wildly >>>>>attack at all. At least against Crafty on ICC and chess.net. >>>> >>>> >>>>The Gambit program has only been out for 2 days. >>>>Most you probably have so far were against 12.92 Beta. >>>>As far as I'm aware there are two or three accounts at >>>>ICC now running Gambit 095. And only one at Chessnet probably >>>>cchess. >>>> >>>>Sarah. >>> >>> >>>I have seen several 'cchess' games this week. Nothing caught my eye. >> >> >>You had originally said after watching hundreds of games. >>Now you have seen several games....but you still don't know >>if the operator was running Gambit 095. >I said I had played hundreds of games vs tiger. That is true. No again you didn't say that, you said; "My impression after watching hundreds of games between the new beta versions and Crafty". See the word beta in your statement. >>I myself honestly doubt that Crafty has played hundreds of games >>against the Tiger beta's, that includes the three main servers. >Feel free to doubt whatever you want. That does _not_ make anything >a fact. Ask any of the tiger operators on ICC. Whose talking about Tiger operators....again...we are talking Tiger Beta's. I talk to those operators daily.....Fact...you have not played "hundreds" of games v any Tiger beta's. Fact...you added them to your noplay list. >>Probably 1/2 the computer accounts are noplayed anyway, then you >>have a formula that don't exactly allow computers to easily play. >This shows your ignorance. Ask one of the ICC admins how large the noplay >list is. Then I'll be happy to show you Crafty's version, of which over >90% are crafty clones added by xboard's ZIPPYNOPLAYCRAFTY option or the >equivalent in my interface. Please don't make statements where you know >exactly _nothing_ about the topic you are talking about. Well, as we both know you are the only one who can see your own noplay list. And I agree with noplaying clones. As for knowing _nothing_ that would seem true of your statements on Tiger beta's. And there is a difference between knowing nothing and lying as in "hundreds of games". >How does that prevent computers? It plays computers so long as the inc is >> 2, and their rating is within 200 points of crafty's. That is restrictive? Most definately. You have Scrappy playing only humans then Crafty running on a super fast computer, how would you expect the average PC at say 500 mhz to get within 200 points?. Currently the only ones that manage are the Tiger clones and Beta's, doing so by playing mainly computers. >Only restriction on computers is inc of at least 3 seconds and the rating >restriction. >That is "restrictive"??? Let's also not forget your finger notes. And that rating restriction is restrictive. Now as I write hist indicates 5 games in the last 12 hours, so clearly it is not being monopolozed. >Study some statistics for a bit. Crafty is typically rated 3000+. I don't >expect to win every game even with a program on a P5/200 machine. The >statistics don't support that. My formula simply handles the case of where >a program has been running on a P5/200 and has a rating of 2400, and then he >goes off and buys a new PIII/900. That causes rating distortion and I choose >to not participate. If he gets his rating into a reasonable range, I will play. Crafty has that rating because of it's processor and it's restrictive policy. If it was open to play computers within 400 that rating would fall significantly. And since as pointed out above it isn't actually playing very often the only logic to it is rating protection. >Crafty seeks 5 3 because _most_ GMs want to play that time control. All you >have to do is ask them. You might have heard lots of things before. It would >help if you remembered them.. Again that wasn't my point, but it seemed to go way over your head..never mind. Sarah.
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.