Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:41:01 10/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2000 at 15:15:08, Chessfun wrote: >On October 05, 2000 at 14:38:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>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? > > >As will be apparent further down. Your understanding of Tiger Beta >compared to Tiger is wrong. Making your "hundereds of games" statement >false. > > >>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 > >Then I assume you will read the following and confirm your own ignorance? > >KYFATS >1: ChessPartner 4.3/ChessTiger 12.0e(modified) >NOT TIGER BETA > >Cchess >Is only at Chessnet and FICS. What is your point here? I played him on chess.net. A few games each and every day last time I looked. > >BountyHunter >1: Programs are Genius 6.5, Shredder 4, and RebelTiger. >NOTE. This is _NOT_ a beta program. > > >KillerMachine >3: Chess Program Currently Running: ChessTiger 12.0 (Rebel-Tiger) >NOT TIGER BETA > >One out of Four....hmmmm As I clearly pointed out, I picked the ones that were easy to remember. Subtleone is another one that is running tiger beta. There are a few others. I don't make a point of remembering handles. I do make a point that I don't noplay tiger or tiger beta programs unless they violate my finger notes, contrary to what you have claimed. > > >>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? > >Does the above one account cchess add up to not over a "HUNDRED" >but the word used "HUNREDS" > >So would you like to re-think your statement and perhaps retract >it since it is easy to shoot it down as wrong? Why don't you simply contact _all_ the tiger beta testers, and ask them how many games they have played vs Crafty on the three servers? And when I say "crafty" I don't only mean the server handle crafty, but all the others that are running Crafty as well, like singacrafty, etc... > > >>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. > > >Albert may be playing now you removed him from your no play list. >But _NO_ you have not seen "hundreds of games". > > >>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? > >Maybe Intel SC450NX quad xeon/550mhz, 512mb RAM, 5X9 10K LVDS disks, >would have something to do with it. But seriously the high rated acounts >would play you if they weren't concerned about getting noplayed as a >result of your notes. And from what I see most do play you whenever they >get the chance. > >But pray tell....Why do you think they don't play Crafty?. Because _they_ understand statistics. And _they_ know that if they are 200 rating points higher, they will _not_ win over 3 of every 4 games. ANd their rating will go _down_. Just as surely as they know that if they are rated 200 points or more below crafty, crafty will not win 3 of every four games, and their rating will go _up_. Computer operators are pretty good at picking their opponents... of not playing the same 400-rating-point-worse IM over and over, etc... > >>>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. > > >Thanks for sharing another Hyattism. > >Sarah. thanks for sharing nothing new...
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.