Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 20:04:49 11/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 2004 at 22:39:00, Steven Edwards wrote: >Concerning the use of "nocomputer" in an ICC formula: > >I note that some computer players on ICC have "nocomputer" in their accept >formula, thus prohibiting challenges from other computer players. Doesn't this >seem just a little bit asymmetrical and without good reason? > >I have no problem with human players having "nocomputer" in their formula, and I >suppose that a computer player could have a "computer" (only) term. > >Symbolic, now on nearly 24/7, takes on all established, non-freeweek opponents >in rated competition with the only restriction being that the opponent rating be >no less that 600 Elo lower. You have several factors at work. This is all from a few years ago , but it completely soured my interest on ICC and usinga computer. In the beginning m when there a few operators , it was not this bad. 1. A computer operator would catch a another computer with glitch and repeatedly play that computer until the cows came home to "win" all the rating points he could. Pretty sad. These are the operators that have detemine that their computer rating has a direct impact on the size of their male appendage. 2. You have computer operators that want to pick and choose their opponents. Sometimes ,this is the result of what I call rating management. With others , it is to avoid the operators like in point 1 above. In either case, the result is thw same +noplay computers. 3. There is always a "johnny come lately" that just joined the server today. He has a brand new 24-way toy box, running Shredder 8 ( I bet you see a lot of Shredders out there -- in my day , it was Genius :) - things have not really changed in 12 years except there are lot more people doing this.) and he want to get "his" rating to 4000 - anyway he can - he will search and destroy any other computer out there because he has has the latest and baddest box. These operators are usually in their young 20 or late teens and either their daddy has money or they are spending evey last dime they have on their box. Very close analogy to the same age kid who gets into muscle cars. They do it for the macho thrill. Rating is not that important per se, but destroying other ratings is. 4. Then there are people like you - true programmers (or true chess computer aficondos) who just want to test what they have done ( or modified) so far or play for their machine for fun. In the long run, you will be more satisfied just getting another equal box (or a dual processor) and just doing your tests/games without the server. You play who you want to play , when you want to play and under what conditions and you have no rating. Some people of course keep their own elaborate rating schemes - but they are doing it just for fun and it 's not like those in points 1 2, and 3.
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.