Author: odell hall
Date: 00:22:07 07/10/01
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... I think it is quite natural, there is a certain appeal to having a program much, stronger than yourself, something you could never beat, it is a curiosity for me to see if others can beat the program, i know i didn't write the program, nor would i want to steal the authors glory, but it is simply something i find enjoyable, not everybody is the same, to each his own.
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.