Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:34:04 10/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2000 at 16:06:36, Chessfun wrote: >On October 05, 2000 at 15:41:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > > >Then why post names of acounts claiming my ignorance when it >is in _fact_ your ignorance not mine as proved above. >Subtleone is Albert Silver who requested that you remove him from >your noplay list. To my knowledge there are only two on ICC. Did you know about wild5crafty? About the guests I posted in the other thread? "to my knowledge" doesn't impress me as "this is absolute fact". > >>>>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... > > >So now you are changing it from Crafty has played "hundreds that you >have seen" to include clones as well? >LOL it gets better and better. Is Singacrafty "crafty"? Or is it not? In that case, I assume there is only _one_ beta Tiger II running? Or are the rules different for tiger and for me? > >>> >>>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_. > > >I doubt that. Crafty has such a high rating from playing humans >while those computer operators get their's from playing other computers. >I think you would find if you played them that Craftys will go down >and theirs will go up. This shows that you really understand what goes on in ICC. How long have you been watching games there? How well do you get to know the operators? Reality is far different from what you think. Just "history" a few high-rated computers and tell me they got those ratings from "playing computers only". That is simply incorrect. Computers only would see ratings lumped into a group with the bottom and top maybe 200 rating points apart. > > >>Computer operators are pretty good at picking their opponents... of not >>playing the same 400-rating-point-worse IM over and over, etc... > > >I agree that's why they would take points from Crafty if you opened up >the 200 rating restriction. > > >>thanks for sharing nothing new... > > >Then why bother replying since you make it clear you are not interested >in anything other than _insults_ when anyone questions anything. > >Sarah. Again, back up to the beginning. I didn't insult _anybody_. I simply stated that beating a single GM in one game is "ho hum" today. Nothing more. Nothing less. You then wanted to make it more because it was GM Mecking. Didn't work for me and I gave Shirov as one reason why.
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.