Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 15:30:52 07/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2001 at 17:05:56, Curtis Williams wrote: >On July 08, 2001 at 00:53:11, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On July 08, 2001 at 00:07:12, Curtis Williams wrote: >> >>>2833 KillerMachi(C) 3451 JRLOK(GM) 3275 KillerMachi(C) >>>2829 Crawly(C) 3443 SpitFire(C) 3135 Weezer(C) >>>2811 SandmanJr(C) 3429 scrappy(C) 3082 Foe-hammer(C) >>>2738 EvilSilicon(C) 3375 Netsurfer(C) 3022 CraftyWiz(C) >>>2726 Colossus(C) 3363 ChessBeta(C) 2970 Trojanx(C) >>>2718 Aegis(C) 3314 RebelRex(C) 2954 Colossus(C) >>>2713 ShredderX(C) 3309 L-Aronian(GM) 2947 diep(C) >>>2711 Good-Boy(C) 3297 KillerMachi(C) 2935 Good-Boy(C) >>>2703 OzsO(C) 3292 lorenzo(GM) 2902 heatstroke(C) >>>2699 heatstroke(C) 3225 garompon(GM) 2902 valheru(C) >>>2696 kooloo(C) 3222 valheru(C) 2878 Hawkeye(GM) >>>2686 valheru(C) 3210 Weezer(C) 2871 Aegis(C) >>>2676 Spendrups(C) 3201 bonvivant 2867 Rabin(IM) >>>2669 BountyHunte(C) 3197 junior(GM) 2858 PIECEOFFCHI(C) >>>2651 Wansi(C) 3187 Dreev(GM) 2833 LarryC(GM) >>>2643 JRLOK(GM) 3180 Hawkeye(GM) 2827 giant-c(C) >>>2641 JrChess 3169 swimmer(C) 2823 Wansi(C) >>>2636 BrazilianMa(C) 3152 jeleen(GM) 2811 Gela(GM) >>>2625 Foe-hammer(C) 3144 NewZorro(GM) 2793 Crawly(C) >>>2622 Talmoves(C) 3141 Irina(GM) 2790 troii(C) >>>2620 Eyssa(C) 3141 YearOfTheR(FM) 2780 Tiger14(C) >>>2611 Deveraux(C) 3140 mikenty(IM) 2779 Lohman(C) >>>Supe >> >>There's no text so I don't know what you are trying to imply by this. If you >>are trying to say that Tiger is strong, Tiger is strong. However, there are >>some facts about the account that should be made known: > >There was no text needed, I was simply posting a fact and that is that Spitfire >IS the number computer account on ICC. Whether the rating is achieved through >your suggested terms or through existing practices it still remains a fact. >> >>1) It only plays humans. >>2) It only plays people rated in excess of almost 3100. > >Mr. Moreland it is a general practice of all computer accounts to play opponents >rated within 350-400 points of there rating. It only makes sense because >there's no gain for playing someone out of that range. So ask yourself if you >were 3400 what in the hell are you doing playing someone 1500? So it's >irrational for you to suggest that. > I don't think it's "general practice" at all. For example, my program is set to play anyone rated over 1800. That's about 800 points below its current rating. >Spitfire is currently set to play anyone within 350 points of it's rating...it's >reasonable and definitely not trolling. Spitfire was once 1800 and progressed >through the rating structure with the same formula it uses now. So it has >achieved the 3400 rating by beating everyone in ICC in a fair manner. According to spitfire's formula it will only play *humans*. Perhaps that's what you mean by "anyone"? >> >>Basically it only plays people who are on the "best" list. So this is yet >>another "human-only" rating pig in the mold of Scrappy, the kind that is making >>it very difficult for a program that plays a wide range of opponents to find any >>titled humans to play. > >Your inflammed comments toward a simple post of progress suggest that you have a >hidden resentment towards Tiger and Crafty (programs with the ability to >interface with ICC) is it that you would like to see you program make it to >number? Whatever the case, don't blast my post because of your jealousies. >Tune your energy into something more constructive like creating a more >competitive program and maybe it too will make it to number one on ICC. This comment is preposterous. I guess you're just trolling for responses? >> >>I think that approximately any good program could get that high on the list if >>it trolled for people who wanted to get punished. > >Spitfire is there as a training tool for players within that range who wish to >match it. It is ICC's policy for computers not to match humans so it is totally >the choice of humans to play these computers. There does exist strong humans, >who seek out strong computers to inflate there rating OR are they seeking out >the strongest tool of chess available to strengthen their play? It's up to >interpretation. Which you have displayed with your comments and are definitely >entitled to them. At the same time, I am entitled to mine and I will continue >to post my progress as I see fit. So come to grips with your insecurites and >move on. > >Curtis I'm not sure I'd call it *your* progress. Tiger is a great program, but all you did was set a restrictive formula. Andrew
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.