Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 12:33:28 07/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2001 at 15:09:48, Slater Wold wrote: >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. JRLOK has a plus score over the last 50 games against scrappy. Over the last 100 games, he is only -2. I don't think you are making a strong point with this. For all intents and purposes, they are equal. [snip]
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.