Author: David H. McClain
Date: 05:44:33 11/13/04
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. Steve, If you have noticed, the participation in the ICC "engine room" is also steadily declining. I attribute this to the facts stated in your post. There are also quite a few operators who play open formula, but not enough anymore. It's too bad, they are good people. Many of us have approached the owners of ICC regarding this to no avail. It's like talking to a brick wall. I probably won't be renewing my membership next year at ICC. Except for Bob Hyatt's two accounts, and perhaps one or two others that test vs. humans and computers using two accounts, I don't understand why many computers, including dual processors, enjoy playing 1600 rated humans all day long. Yet these same accounts, when things get slow or if they want to enhance their rating, go pick on some of the "weak sisters" for a series of games that they know they will win to re-establish their standings. The fault directly falls on the administration of ICC. DHM
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.