Author: Slater Wold
Date: 12:09:48 07/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2001 at 14:22:06, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On July 09, 2001 at 13:38:00, Slater Wold wrote: > >>Perhaps that's not a bad idea. But the simple truth is, most people play for >>that rating. >> >>Take "RebelRex" for example. His first 600 games, he playing anyone, or >>anything, rated over 2500 unrated or rated. At any timer. His rating was >>approx. 3000. He has recently changed, to only play humans, and is now 3200+. >>Why did he do this? To compete with Spitfire? Because he is only interested in >>results against humans? Who knows?! Who cares!? >> >>The reason I do NOT believe in computers that play humans only, is just as Bruce >>Moreland stated. I _LIKE_ to play humans, more so than I like to play other >>computers. However, I am rated a lowly 2950, with a high of 3080. Now, who is >>a 3000 rated GM going to play? A 3400+ or a 2950? Regardless of WHO the best >>is, the higher rated will almost always be played. >> >>I just took a look at my DB, and well over 80% of my rated games on ICC have >>been against other computers. With the other 20% being 5 or 6 FM's, IM's, and >>GM's. >> >>The truth is, that GM's on ICC are rating pigs just like Spitfire. If they >>offer lessons, the one with the biggest rating will get more stundents, more >>simul's, more money. >> >>I think Scrappy was a valid experiment. And I think it was interesting. >>However, I feel it was _VERY_ unfair. Let me explain: I understand 100% why >>Bob did it. Because if you ever saw Crafty before Scrappy was around, there was >>usually a line to play it. GM's were being cut off by computer accounts, and >>Bob has always said, he is more interested in playing humans than computers. >>This makes a second account completly understandable. However, let's look at it >>in this aspect; does Bob pay for the account Scrappy? I mean, I understand he >>pays for Hyatt, but what about Crafty and Scrappy? I think if ALL the (C) >>operators on ICC got 3 accounts, we would all be a lot better off. I mean, we >>could have one for (C)'s only, one for humans only, and one for ourselves. >>Perfect! However, that's $150 a year, just in a "recreational" hobby. I don't >>know many people who are going to go for that. I also understand that Hyatt is >>the author, and he has special privleges for this. However, SMK, Christophe, >>Ed, Frans, NONE of them have ICC or FICS accounts. It's not like we are taking >>away directly from the programmers. Also, you must again take into account, who >>is a GM going to play? A 2950 rated commercial program, or a 3400+ rated >>Crafty? Once again, it just all makes better sense. Once agian, I do not >>disagree about what Bob did, it did make sense. Just making the point that if >>we were all afforded the luxury of 3 accounts for the price of 1, we wouldn't be >>having this conversation. > > >I guess the above is directed at Bob. Good luck. Not directed at anyone. Just a simple observation on the situation. > >> >>I use my account for bullshit. I won't use a book here, use a screwy book here, >>use this here, that there, etc., etc. My 2950 rating is BS. And I am happy >>with it. I can get a game just about 24/7 on ICC, against the best computers, >>and SOME GM's. >> >>Let's also think back about 2 months ago. JRLOK issued a match to ME, on ICC. >>NOT to Spitfire. Let's all take a minute, and think why that is. > > >I don't understand this. If your account plays other comps, then it should hurt >JRLOK to play you in comparison to playing Spitfire, since your comps rating >will is lower than it would be if it played humans only. He did you a favor, We played unrated. And yes, it was a favor. Just not one that was asked. That was the strange part. Look below: >BTW, JRLOK has played spitfire 11 times for a record of -4 +2 =5. Since he was >generally rated about 75 points lower than spitfire in his losses (except 1), >his rating was not really harmed. This is what you would expect from a program >that only plays humans. If he played it more often, he probably would have >zeroed in on its weaknesses and even gained rating points. Like I said, I did not play JRLOK rated. It wasn't for points. Also, it was a 25/5 game. How many of those 11 games were at a standard time control. AH, forget it. Point was, I think JRLOK wanted to play the "official" stronger program on stronger hardware. But like I said, just forget it. >Comp ratings are deflated, since they spend most of the time playing each other >and are avoided by humans. Comps upgrade their hardware and software, but their >ratings remain realtively low since they are just trading rating points with >each other, so the improvements do not get reflected in their ratings over the >long term. They are an almost separate rating pool within the larger rating >pool. Agreed. However, please take this into consideration: JRLOK lost most of his games against Scrappy. He still ended up with the highest rating on ICC ever. Bob will tell you, humans notice little difference between his 4x550 and 4x700. That's a full 600mhz. Upgrade from a 1.0Ghz to a 1.6Ghz and the computer operators will take notice, however, the strong GM's probably won't. >> >>Bottom line, anyone who makes the stupid statement, "Fastest single processor >>system on ICC" is automatically a rating pig in my eyes. I have the fastest >>system PERIOD on ICC, and would never bring it up, or state it. (Well, other >>than here.) I will _NEVER_ have the highest rating on ICC. And that doesn't >>bother me. I will also _NEVER_ only play humans. > > >But what is really wrong with being a rating pig? You get to play stronger human >opponents. The get to play human opponents more often since they don't feel they >are being bled of their rating points. The only oppnents you piss off are the >ones you don't want to play anyway. The one drawback is the complaints, which >are just irrational sour grapes. As long as you don't delude yourself when >comparing your comps rating with other comps, where is the harm? If other comp >operators feel you are crowding out their ability to get good human opponents, >that is *their* fault. Why should you have to make a sacrifice to please them? Well. LOL. That is kinda funny. Because if there weren't ANY computers on ICC with !computer (don't play computers) then would we be having this conversation? Hell no. And then GM's would be forced to still play the higher rated computers. But instead of playing computers with inflated ratings, they would be playing the best computers, being determined by strength compared to humans AND computers. Trust me, I don't give a damn what Curtis does with his ICC (C) account. I was simply stating, that when that FIRST person who had the idea, "if i play humans only, and inflate my rating, perhaps I can attract more GM's" screwed it up for the rest of us. I am not upset with Bob, or Curtis, or anyone with !computer in their formula. I was simply stating, it DOES take away from the other (C) operators. All I was saying. > >> >>That's enough for now, I think. :) >> >> >>Slate
This page took 0.01 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.