Author: Mark Young
Date: 17:11:15 06/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 1999 at 16:38:15, James T. Walker wrote: >On June 28, 1999 at 11:00:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 28, 1999 at 09:57:20, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>> >>>On June 28, 1999 at 01:27:53, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On June 27, 1999 at 16:43:59, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 27, 1999 at 15:49:53, odell hall wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am thinking about setting up a computer account on ICC? Does anyone know >>>>>>Which Program would do the best? If the choice was between Genius 5 , hiarcs6, >>>>>>Mchess 8 or Genius 3? I have heard that Genius 5 is the Best a blitz chess >>>>>>(game/15) is this still true. What program would tear the crafty clone Data to >>>>>>shreds!! (incredibly strong data is!) Or should I just go out and purchase >>>>>>Chessmaster 6000 to do the Job? >>>>> >>>>>The best results I have had is with Hiarcs 7.01. I have not had a chance to play >>>>>7.32 online because of the testing I am running now. I most likely will only >>>>>test Hiarcs 7.32 against humans online, after testing Hiarcs 7.01 online against >>>>>other computers its left a bad taste in my mouth. I try to test against the best >>>>>programs online and play a set amount of games, but with Hiarcs 7 this became >>>>>almost impossible because of the high winning percentage Hiarcs 7 was >>>>>generating. The automatic programs would no play me, or change the time formula >>>>>to only play 0 inc games in the middle of my testing, and some of the other >>>>>manuale computer operators were no better. Rating protection in online play is >>>>>only getting worse, and thats to bad because it was a nice tool to use in the >>>>>evaluation of chess programs. >>>> >>>>I do not understand it. >>>>I think that programmers should prefer to play against strong opponents because >>>>they can learn from the games that they lose to improve their programs. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>He is not talking about programmers. >>> >>>bruce >> >> >>Bruce, myself, Stanback, Ban, plus the usual cast of the "under 2600 club" here >>play on ICC and do just what you suggest. But we are a tiny bit of the total >>number of computers playing there. There are dozens of Fritz, Hiarcs, shredder, >>and so forth (not to mention crafty, comet, tcb, etc) that are run by _others_. >>And _they_ are not working on improving their programs. Many work only to >>improve their 'rating' which is a point I don't understand. > >He may be talking about programmers. If the shoe fits, wear it. Programmers >are not immune from the action he is talking about. There seems to be a rating >point contest on ICC and programmers seem to be caught up in this action too. >It seems like programmers can't separate their egos from their programs either. >There are many childish "games" being played on ICC with computer accounts. I >run a computer account on ICC as a hobby. I enjoy watching the different >programs play each other. It is a long time hobby of mine that goes back to my >first two chess computers (Chess Challenger 10 vs Sargon 2.5). I can play Fritz >vs Crafty at home but I don't have a "Quad Xeon" so I don't get the same quality >of play I would get if I get a chance to play Fritz/Hiarcs vs Crafty. So I enjoy >the games on the Internet. And If I get a chance to watch a GM / IM play >Fritz/Hiarcs it's a real treat for me! That's what I get out of running a >computer account. And Bob, I got to tell you, your words ring a little hollow >on this point. I'm still on the Crafty "Noplay" list and my only "Crime" is >that I played 5 games vs Crafty. This after I explained, that there was nothing >in your notes about this and it was just a misunderstanding. Is this your way >of protecting your rating points? >I, like the above poster, was under the impression that programmers would like >to test their programs against top level competition to look for flaws. I would >think you would learn more from one loss vs Fritz than winning 16 of 17 vs a FM. > I thought it would be better if the progams were actually playing chess rather >than just sitting idle waiting for a GM / IM to come along. Apparently I was >wrong. >Jim Walker To be fair, it must stated that Bruce and Bob in the past have gone out of their way to allow me to test the commercail programs against their programs. Bruce has a open policy when playing his computer, no limit on games, a fair inc level for me to use etc., and if you beat it he wants you to play more. Bruce was totally cool about people playing his program. But the number of computer players, programmers or not that don't protect their rating is getting to small, and you have to look to hard to find enough sample size to make testing meaningful.
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.