Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 13:26:04 07/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2001 at 15:32:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 09, 2001 at 13:11:20, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >> >>I think there are many good reasons for not rating comp games on ICC: > >I have a slightly different view... I think it would be better if the only >comps allowed were the ones run by the program authors. That would cut out a >lot of "computer glut" on all the servers, and really minimize this problem. > >One computer (Crafty, say) won't influence the rating pool nearly so much as >50 or 100 will, even though I do make changes frequently. > > > >> >>(1) The comp accounts adversely affect the rating system on ICC, since: >> >> (i) The operators of the comp accounts change hardware (usually faster) that >>makes the comp rating a misrepresentation of the accounts playing level. >> >> (ii) The operators of comp accounts will sometimes change engines, which >>makes the accounts rating misrepresentative too. >> >> (iii) The comp operator may be the programmer, who may make changes to the >>program, which again makes the accounts rating misrepresentative. >> >>(2) It becomes problematical for human players to gauge their progress with >>respect to several months earlier due to (1), since ratings from different time >>periods become more difficult to compare due to the adverse impact comps >>probably have on the rating system. This is true generally anyway, but I would >>think the inclusion of rated comp games makes things worse. >> >>----------------------------- >> >>As things stand now, it would make sense if operators only played rated games >>against humans and unrated games against comps. Then they would get to play >>human players more often. The reason I say this, is because human players stand >>to lose a lot of rating points against comps, since comp ratings are generally >>deflated. I think most of the prospective human opponents avoid comp accounts, >>because the cost in rating is too high. Also, a comp rated by games against >>humans only, will get a higher rating and therefore attract higher quality >>opponents (both human and non-human). >> >>Take a look at the 2 accounts Scrappy and Crafty. Scrappy is rated over 400 >>points higher than Crafty, since it only plays humans. The program is the same >>and the hardware is the same. It should be obvious that any human that plays >>Crafty is an idiot when he could play the much higher rated Scrappy instead. The >>human stands to lose a lot of rating points against Crafty if they play an >>extended series of games. Against Scrappy, he does not have to worry about this >>so much. >> >>All the comp accounts that play both humans and comps are essentially the same >>proposition to the human as crafty is. Humans stand to lose a lot of rating >>points against them too so there should be a tendency to avoid them in >>preference to an account like Scrappy or another human. >> >>BTW, it is a mistake to think ratings don't matter on ICC, since your rating >>affects the quality of the opposition you face on ICC. Playing against the best >>quality opposition as possible ought to matter to anyone serious about >>improving. > >Ratings are _bloody_ on ICC. :) Nothing is more important to some. > > >> >>------------------------------ >> >>There is a certain Curtis Williams that seems to have irritated a lot of people >>with his policy of playing only humans with his comp account Spitfire. This post >>may seem to support what he has done, but this is not my intent. Actually, what >>I think people really find irritating is his motivation for doing so. He wants >>to portray his account as the "King of the Hill" among comp accounts, when what >>he has done has only created the appearance this is so when it is not. >> >>It's funny that he managed to delude himself with this fantasy, despite >>employing an "artificial" means to do it. > >Again, I don't see the point of playing someone else's program on a server. It >takes time, computer resources, and for what? I would no more run another >program than I would race someone else's automobile. The construction is part >of the fun. > >I've never understood all the comp operators on the servers. I doubt I ever >will... Its not that strange. After all, you already do it! Well partly anyway, since you run Eugene's tablebase access code :-) Think of a player on ICC as a chess playing system. There are many things you can tweak: 1) hardware 2) hash settings 3) opening books 4) evaluation/style parameters 5) server formula's and seeks 6) the actual engine (via the source code) For people who run chess programs they didn't write, it is still possible to tweak the first 5 things. I'm sure its alot of fun too. In some ways its not so different to what you and I do with our own chess engines. After all, these people have input to the chess playing system, and so can take some responsibility and excitement from watching the results unfold. Sure they didn't 'write the whole thing', but then you and I didn't write the compiler/librarys/operating system either - but that still forms part of *OUR* chess playing system. Sure, we developed a bit more of our chess playing systems than the 'non-authors', but is it really so black and white? Are we so different? Do you really struggle to understand them? cheers, Peter
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.