Author: Steven Edwards
Date: 06:42:08 11/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2004 at 08:44:33, David H. McClain wrote:
>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
First, let me make a correction to my earlier post: it's not "nocomputer", it's
"!computer".
Second, I thought that computer players weren't supposed to issue challenges
("match") to human players, although "rematch" challenges were permitted. Is
this how a dual CPU box as you've mentioned can choose 1600 Elo players over the
general opponent pool?
Third, it seems that close to half of the ICC computer players have "!computer"
in their formula. I'm thinking of making a "hall of shame" list.
Fourth, why is it that some opponents offer draws to a computer player even when
they're a piece down with no chance of escaping an eventual checkmate?
Sometimes an offer comes in even after Symbolic has announced via tell that it
has a forced mate in N moves! They're wasting their time making these offers to
Symbolic as I've programmed its xboard interface to ignore all such input.
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.