Author: David H. McClain
Date: 07:25:17 11/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2004 at 09:51:33, Norm Pollock wrote: >Road rage perhaps. If you were winning, he was probably trying to erase the game >from his records when you interfered by offering an adjourn/abort. > >I don't like the 3+0 games although sometimes that's all that's available to >play. My experience with 3+0 games on playchess is that the faster computers >have a BIG advantage over slower computers. That advantage is not as big with >5+3 games. So those who really want to up their rating, and have a fast >computer, engage mostly in 3+0 games. So naturally if they lose a 3+0 game, they >might get upset especially if your rating is much lower. Norm, Fisrt of all, and in all fairness, I should reiterate this was not over "points" although I play rated only unless a challenger requests otherwise. This particular account of the sysop IS an open formula, and the game was valid draw in a valid conclusion. Since I use an Intel P 3, yes, 3 0 games are a foregone conclusion when I alter my formula and play a few. I simply found the statements the sysop made to me quite flattering in that he thought I had cyber control over his computer, and the stupidity of his "fair play" statement. I don't know what compensation this particular Playchess sysop gets, perhaps it is not enough........... I suppose sysops have bad hair days too... This is not a general reference to all the Playchess sysops, most go beyond the call of duty that I have dealt with.
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.