Author: Curtis Williams
Date: 19:38:02 07/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2001 at 21:14:12, Bruce Moreland wrote: >The fact remains that as of this moment you will only play people rated in >excess of 3076. As of this moment, that's 56 people and no other computers. >You don't play other computers because lower-rated computers would challenge you >and you would lose rating points. Mr. Moreland let me state my reason for obtaining a computer account on ICC. Hopefully I will make myself perfectly clear where I stand with it. My goal is to be number one in ICC, period. I've played through the ranks and paid my dues and it would be irrational to go outside of the constraints of my formula. Now what you do with your account is your business, I respect it and I expect you to do the same. As I win games the cutoff increases. If I were to go out side of that range I wouldn't reach my goal. I don't have the same aspirations of chess as you do. I simply put my program in the best situation to become number one. Simple. I play humans only because I'm a chess student and I'd prefer to watch GMs play my account than another computer. If I wanted that I would produce it offline because I have every program available including yours. So simply stated, it's my perrogative to do whatever I want to with my program, it's just tuff if you think otherwise. > >I don't suggest that you allow people rated 1500 to play it. That would amuse >the 1500's but it wouldn't create good games. The 1500's would do better to >play something that they have a chance of beating by playing "normal" chess. > >But 3076 seems like a pretty high cutoff point. What, you think that someone >rated a mere 2900 or 3000 is not enough of a challenge? And surely someone >rated a mere 2800 could provide "you" with some small challenge. GMs represent a small percentage of chess players and normally play there RATED peers during tounament competition. Why would this scenerio be any different? > >Your comment about "no gain" from playing outside of that range says it all. Referring to my previous statment, my goal is to be number one and this falls in line with achieving that. > >>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. > >The account trolls for GM's who have a death wish. It's just like Scrappy in >this regard. The rating doesn't come from beating "everyone" on ICC, it comes >from playing only high-rated humans and generally hanging out in the bizarre end >of the rating pool. > Be that as it may, if there wasn't a demand for high rated chess programs on ICC then I wouldn't be 3400. >My program was the first account on ICC to hit 3000. It has been number one on >the server in various categories for months at a stretch. It has held server >records in all three time control categories for periods measured in months or >years. It's also been computer world title holder in blitz, twice. You may not >know this because I never wrote a giant post ANNOUNCING any of this here. So >I'm not jealous of "your" rating on ICC, nor do I think that I have anything I >need to prove. > Well it would be in your best intrest Mr. Moreland if you did give your program more visibility and reach number one and fight like hell to keep it. It only makes sense. I've heard of Theron and Hyatt but Moreland and Ferret have been missing from the popular list, at least among my peers of chess program enthusiast that I deal with on a daily basis. Think..EXPOSURE. it's the only way your program is going to survive. > >The humans are playing the highest-rated machine, in the hopes of getting rating >points. It's like a slot machine -- people will play the one that hasn't paid >off for a while. They won't play the lower rated computers because their own >precious ratings would go up in a puff of smoke. You're discussing Human behavior, which you nor I have any influence over. It's a rule of nature that people always make decision to better themselves and chess is no exception! Thankyou for your dialouge but this still doesn't change the fact that my account, regardless of how, is number one now. Cheers! Curtis
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.