Author: Georg v. Zimmermann
Date: 07:27:18 06/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
I wrote about 2 pages then deleted them again to try to focus argumentation on 1 point :) You ask why allow GMs to select the time controls against certain players but not computers. The answer is: because it is not the computer who selects the time control, it is the operator! A human will most times play the time control he thinks he is best at ( and if someone prefers 1 0 and the other 3 0 and they want to play each other maybe they play 2 0, I have seen it happen often enough ). A operator weakens the computers strength against humans considerable by not setting formula to (inc == 0 && (time == 3 || time == 1 || time == 15)) ! That in itself is ok like it is ok to have a special crafty account searching only 5 ply. But it would not be ok to reduce that to 4 ply whenever it is playing account "Tecumseh". Even though that would certainly make me happy ! Some more ideas about what you said below. Of course you have a point here. But that doesn't mean that I don't :) The rating system would work much better if only tournament play would be rated (like the FIDE system). But IMHO the rating system does not become invalid because I play some people a bit more often than others. (One example: I am likely to play people who log on in my timezone more often). The rating system does become invalid when I play a specific opponent a lot more often than others. So maybe ICC should guard against that. On June 23, 2001 at 09:55:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 23, 2001 at 03:59:15, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: > >>IMHO computer accounts should have 1 formula and live by it. If you allow some >>players to play it at 5 7 time controls you should allow everyone. It is >>questionable to favor friends this way. Just a suggestion. >> >>Regards, >>Georg > > >That is simply a statistically nonsensical suggestion. If you want to >eliminate the problem, you have to do the following: > >1. adopt three specific time controls for the server. Say 2 1 for bullet, >5 1 for blitz, and 30 30 for standard. _no_ exceptions. > >2. If you are matched, you _must_ accept, or else log off and stay off for >24 hours. This means that a GM will have to play a 1000 player. Statistically >this should happen as it would happen in (say) the US Open with a lot of >players present. > >I don't think humans will accept _either_ of those. And as long as multiple >time controls are present, and selectivity in who plays who is present, it is >_ridiculous_ to suggest that the computers have to do something that the big >majority of the players there don't have to do. > >Why do you separate computers from GM players and give the GM players >flexibility but not the computers? That is statistically invalid. > >Why give GM players the ability to play 5 0 against some opponents, and 2 12 >against others, but not give computers that ability? Also statistically >invalid. > >The entire population has to play with the same rules, or the overall rating >system is invalid. Not just flawed as it is at present.
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.