Author: David Beauregard
Date: 14:40:01 11/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2000 at 15:39:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 06, 2000 at 14:48:23, David Beauregard wrote: > >>On November 05, 2000 at 09:51:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 05, 2000 at 00:52:34, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On November 03, 2000 at 10:39:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 03, 2000 at 00:18:40, David Beauregard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 02, 2000 at 22:28:50, pavel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 02, 2000 at 15:07:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On November 02, 2000 at 05:07:36, Jerry wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Why waste your time with crafty or scrappy??? >>>>>>>>>Singacrafty is the same program and will play ALL other programs... >>>>>>>>>You can see craftys true rating there, not the over rated rank achieved by >>>>>>>>>noplaying those with better programs... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Good Luck on ICC...LeTiger is a tough opponent >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You say I noplay those with better programs. I challenge you to prove >>>>>>>>that statement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> attakinski cmslim criollo dini egghead FireViper >>>>>>>> GODMODE gzk inmortal Kurios Mr-Matt Pietari >>>>>>>> BarkingCow comp CUP98 EA6PZ eivissa Gatling >>>>>>>> Good-Boy HangerOn Jack-Daniels Masterchess muhaha >>>>>>>> twixer brut ComputerMan Dementia Eatman ET2000 >>>>>>>> Ghostn Gregorio HUGES jason-1 MasterMarc Mungo >>>>>>>> Wild5Crafy CARobot CraftyCrafty DesX Ebbi Eza >>>>>>>> GmSuperSoffer grouchy ibrax JJcool MateGoD MysticWarrior >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That is the _total_ noplay list for crafty at the present moment. You can >>>>>>>>verify this with an ICC admin if you want. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Now exactly which "top programs" have I noplayed? Most of those are computer >>>>>>>>cheaters and crafty users. Only a very few are there for violating my finger >>>>>>>>notes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>your turn. Maybe to offer facts rather than incorrect speculation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>where is 'letiger' in your list? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Pavel >>>>>> >>>>>>Bob, how about the following list of top programs you have no played including >>>>>>LeTiger who is still censored and noplayed. The following are top programs you >>>>>>have no played for what reason I do not know but here they are Mr. Hyatt. >>>>>> >>>>>>LeTiger, Good-Boy, CARobot, Gregorio, EA6PZ, Egghead, mystic warrior. These >>>>>>programs are top programs and can win and would win their fair share against >>>>>>Crafty if you would not hide behind your noplay and censor rules. >>>>>> >>>>>>LeTiger >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>OK... feel free to do what you want. That attitude does not earn my >>>>>admiration. I don't "hide behind" anything. I simply choose to noplay >>>>>folks that think they don't have to follow my rules. >>>>> >>>>>If you don't like my policies, all I can say is "tough". If you want to >>>>>say I hide behind my policies, fine. But don't come up with this nonsense >>>>>of hiding behind my noplay and censor list. I now remember why I censored >>>>>you in the first place. Hint: it has to do with "attitude". I don't feel >>>>>obligated to put up with nonsense. >>>>> >>>>>You have been un-noplayed for days. However, I don't care whether we play >>>>>again or not. There are _plenty_ of tiger operators on ICC that are a bit >>>>>less arrogant, and a lot more polite. I'll stick with them. >>>> >>>>What did he do? >>>> >>>>I know that I have had some trouble with operators and put them on my noplay >>>>list, but I can't remember why, in most cases. In a few cases I actually took >>>>notes, but now I can't find the notes. >>>> >>>>I've been running on Otter recently and I don't think that has much of a noplay >>>>list at all, so it has been playing some of the guys who are on your noplay >>>>list. >>>> >>>>So far, no problems. >>>> >>>>I don't know why you need to worry about these guys. If you want to get the >>>>games, but don't want the attitude, you can add something to your interface that >>>>deletes tells from them, as well as draw requests, requests for aborts, >>>>adjournments, kibitzes, and takebacks. That lets you censor them while still >>>>allowing them to play. At that point they become perfect opponents. >>> >>>The problem is that I don't want a huge number of games vs one single >>>program, which is where the 4 game limit came from. Prior to automatic >>>interfaces for commercial programs, it was rare to play 4 games in a row, >>>but once automatic interfaces were developed, it became common. He was >>>noplayed by my interface for playing well over 4 games in a row. Usually >>>when this happens, the operator will say "sorry, I missed your notes, it >>>won't happen again" and I remove them. In this case, I simply received more >>>abuse about "hiding" which hardly encourages me to remove anything at all. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>You have a whole bunch of people who want to fight with you simultaneously. I >>>>would find it hard to manage this many fights, personally. At some point it has >>>>to become impossible to manage. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>> >>>There is little to manage. Other than the occasional complaint here. >> >>Bob, I thought we had buried this issue. The problem came in that I did not >>play you four games in a row but that bounty hunter and other tigers, which I >>did not finger on, had already played the four games. I was the fifth game. >>Since going thru everybodies finger notes is a little tedious to see if they are >>playing tigers and now a lot of operators are playing multiple engines. >>I hope this puts to rest once and for all this issue and that LeTiger and Crafty >>can play once in a while. Thanks. David Beauregard > > >Note that not all of this is addressed to you. This has come up before. >And as Bruce mentioned, it will come up again. > >Just think about this: > >Crafty/ICC is my _only_ methodology for testing program changes. I don't run >multiple machines in my office, autoplaying other programs 24 hours a day. I >depend on that testing methodology completely. And for that reason, I want a >variety of opponents, including (mainly) human IM/GM players. > >I don't try to tell Ed or Christophe or Frans or any other program developer >who he has to test against. I assume they are old enough and wise enough to >know who they are most interested in testing against. That is all I ask for >on ICC... the ability to play who/what/when I want to maximize my testing >results. > >That is why I get particularly aggravated when someone starts in with the >"you are just hiding your high rating behind your noplay list." If the >people that said that would simply do a bit of research on ICC, using the >history and search commands, they would find that this is actually the >opposite of what I do. I don't hide from strong programs. I don't think >I have anything to fear from _any_ program in fact. But I do want to prevent >my testing from becoming biased when I only play (and tune for) one specific >program. That is unhealthy in the max... > >You have to be _very_ careful when you read messages on a general message board >like this. It is all too easy to conclude that all the remarks are addressed to >you.. when in reality, they are frequently addressed to a group of people, >since a 'group' is reading these posts... Bob you may think that this is a stupid question but being a novice in chess programming I would like to know why you like to test using IM or GM players. Would not Fritz or Shredder give you better ideas for moves than the humans. What percentage of GM's play Crafty and win? Thanks for the message about not taking it all personally. I am understanding your methodology and can now see your viewpoint. Thanks......Dave 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.