Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:38:51 10/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2000 at 13:15:04, Chessfun wrote: >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. Please pay _careful_ attention: Tiger beta testing has been going on for some while. The word "beta" was intentionally used. As I also said later, I was unaware that "tiger beta" and "gambit tiger beta" were two different things. My statement is _still_ 100% correct. Your understanding of it is lacking, however. Would you like a precise count of the number of games vs tiger beta that Crafty has played on chess.net, fics, and ICC? > >>>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. That shows your ignorance. Ask any of the following players if they have been noplayed, and how many games they have played against Crafty over the past week: KyFats: 35 BountyHunter: 26 CChess: 52 KillerMachine: 7 Those were played in the last 2 weeks. Others are using tiger as well but they have disabled the kibitz, and I don't feel like taking the time to track them down. Does the above add up to over a hundred? Without really trying? So would you like to re-think your statement and perhaps retract it since it is easy to shoot it down as wrong? > > >>>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". I picked 4 tiger players that stuck out. There are others. I believe that Albert is testing as well. So yes, I have seen _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. If they can't get within 200 points, that is _my_ problem? The ones that are rated as high or higher do _not_ play Crafty of their own choosing. Wonder why that is? > > >>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. Doesn't matter to me how this looks. I believe that I have the right to set the restrictions that I want. I prefer playing GM players. I allow computers to play from time to time, but I choose to restrict how much. Otherwise it would only be playing computers. Which doesn't particularly interest me at all. > >>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. Consider your psychic abilities on a par with the rest of your comments. IE worthless. Of course it's rating would fall. Because I don't believe that I can beat any program 15 out of 16 games. nor do I believe any program can beat me 15 out of 16 games. If the programs can reach 2800 by playing GMs, which I can certainly do (and have done in fact) then they can play me with no problems. If they can't reach 2800 playing GM players, then perhaps I don't want to play them at all?? > >>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. You didn't have a point to go over my head. You mentioned the 5 3 seeks. I have three seeks outstanding, which are the three most common time controls asked for by GM players. Has _nothing_ to do with computers, in any shape, form, or fashion. In fact, computers are not allowed to _answer_ seeks on ICC, which I would assume you know?
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.