Author: David Beauregard
Date: 15:14:27 11/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 2000 at 16:24:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > >>Bob, I am not arguing that you have a right to noplay anybody especially if they are abusive. I did not think that Andreas response was very appropriate for this forum. I think vulgarity has no place here. All I was saying is that Andreas did not know the circumstances and therefore the comment was rude or abusive. I have no argument with you....you can no play or do anything you want just give the person the benefit of the doubt when they try to tell you what happened. I asked you politely to take me off your no play and censor list. This subject on this message board got way out of hand. The reason I decided to send you email was because of Silver recommending that method. This is what I did not want to happen. It was only a request to let LeTiger play Crafty once in awhile. It is not point getting from Crafty only interesting games. Besides I did not know that if a Grandmaster was playing that somehow a computer operator could intervene????? Is this correct? If I have caused you any problems I apologize and you can keep me on no play or censor if you want. The choice is yours. I will abide by your finger notes but keeping up with all the new chess programs and who they are is time consuming and prone to error as I learned last time. Thanks and I hope this is the end of this mess. I apologize for any inconvenience to you. 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.