Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:24:47 11/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 2000 at 16:05:01, David Beauregard wrote: >On November 01, 2000 at 04:52:57, Andreas Stabel wrote: > >>On October 31, 2000 at 21:21:20, Jason Williamson wrote: >> >>>On October 31, 2000 at 07:06:36, Andreas Stabel wrote: >>> >>>>On October 31, 2000 at 00:28:55, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 30, 2000 at 22:49:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 30, 2000 at 21:30:09, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>I just went and checked to see what Crafty has been doing recently, and it has >>>>>>>been idle for 44 minutes. It has played four games in the past eight hours. It >>>>>>>has played seven games so far today and it played eight yesterday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It doesn't seem that you need to worry that much about people hogging it. If >>>>>>>Crafty has been idle for 45 minutes, why not play against a Tiger? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>This is not real common. And Murphy's law often strikes. IE I logged on >>>>>>Friday and had two different complaints from humans that got interrupted. >>>>> >>>>>Just checked again and guess what? Idle: 44 >>>>> >>>>>bruce >>>> >>>>What's itching you. There are litterally tens of craftys you can play any >>>>time. There is scrappy which has the same hardware as crafty, you can >>>>download the source or an executable yourself. You have hundreds of other >>>>options, but still you go on and on like a five year old child wanting >>>>candy about playing exactly the one crafty which is reserved for strong >>>>human opponents. >>>> >>>>What is your real motivation for this nonsence ? >>>> >>>>Andreas Stabel >>> >>>The motivation for some people, (Bruce excepted) is they see Crafty's high >>>rating and want to take some of the points. Most of the more open crafty's are >>>much lower rated. And as far as I Know, there is only 1 quad xeon crafty on the >>>ICC. >>> >>>JW >> >>Ahaaaaaa - rating envy :) >>It must be as bad as penis envy ! >>It explains a lot of the, to me, completely irrational complaining about >>not beeing allowed to play one of the many instanses of crafty. >> >>Andreas >> >> >>Andreas > >Andreas...what is all the fuss about my asking Hyatt to not censor or no play >LeTiger anymore. The questions was not directed at you and I do not think you >know the circumstance of the problem. I am not the only one who has had a >problem with Hyatt censoring and noplaying their programs. Just ask Amir Ban of >Junior and others. As I said, I removed you when you asked. however, I do _not_ have an obligation to play _anybody_. And if I stipulate that you have to play me while standing on one foot and singing Amazing Grace in e-flat, than that is my rule, and you can either do it or not play me. Make any rules you want for _your_ handle. I will either honor them or not play you. To further this, why don't you ask others how much trouble _they_ have with my policies. I play a dozen different accounts that use all sorts of different programs. They seem to have _no_ problem with my policies and they play games _all_ the time. I reserve the right to not play people that won't follow my rules. I reserve the right to not play people that are intentionally insulting. I reserve the right to not play people that pee on my front porch. Heck, I reserve the right to not play people just because I don't want to play them. >If you had to search thru 24 histories to see who was a Tiger program or not and >then made one mistake and was the fifth one and got noplayed and then censored >when you tried to explain then I think you would think differently. I do not >need crafty"s rating points and it certainly is not penis envy which I think is >a sad commentary. Bruce is right. This finger note problem is a nasty problem. Why is it a nasty problem? I have a sign in my yard "Beware of dogs". If you come into my front yard, you had _better_ be looking around. I also don't allow automobiles in my front yard, because I have a sprinkler system and don't want the sprinkler heads damanged. But all I have to say is "no cars on front lawn". I don't have to give a reason. I don't have to even _have_ a reason. If I only want to play computers with 4 letter handles on ICC, I see no reason why I can't do that. I suppose I totally miss the point here, as you can tell. What obligates _me_ to play _anybody_? No computer operator supplies me with hardware to use, with a network connection to use, nor with software to use. So where is _my_ obligation stemming from? > LeTiger plays all humans and GM and IM's and computers and have no played or >censored anybody. I think your policy is stupid. You _must_ noplay somebody, even if you have no reason. Why? because _I_ say so, that's why. Or at least that is the logic you (and others) are using when telling _me_ what _I_ should be doing. When you can convince me of a good reason why I am obligated to play you or anybody else, regardless of what program they use, how abusive they are, etc, then I will change. But I see little chance since I am _not_ in debt to anybody. > >David Beauregard > >David Beauregard
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.