Author: Serge Desmarais
Date: 17:27:23 09/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 1998 at 00:49:17, Jeff Anderson wrote: >On September 14, 1998 at 22:13:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>the most noticable affect is that "crafty" used to play a hundred games a >>day. Now it sometimes plays 10 or less, because there are so many crafty's >>on ICC. > >Well your formula is very strict! You eliminate 95% of all possible challengers > with insisting that there rating be above about 25001 > >Secondly you will only accepted challenges that propose rated games. > >Now I think there is something to the suggested idea of ICC computers allowing >takebacks. For example you might lower the formula to allow those rated above >2000 play, and allow 2-5 takebacks a game. If you are really concerned about >seeing games where Crafty has losses against humans, you might consider this >approach. Also you could simply ask people to send you log files games where >Crafty lost against humans. > >This would be the sensible approach if your number one concern was having >valuable information for improving Crafty. But I'm sure it is not like the >adreniline rush you must get when you watch your program beat a GM. You say >your strict rating restrictions are in the name of science! You say you would >like to see games where Crafty has lost so you can improve Crafty, and very >strong players beat Crafty more frequently. Well this is non-sense, because two >perfectly reasonable alternatives have been offered, two that would give you >excellent data, and one that gives Joe Patzer a chance to play Crafty....and >win! > > >Jeff Bob could also increase the possible increments for Carfty's blitz and standard games for manually operated commercial programs to challenge it. Serge Desmarais
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.