Author: Will Singleton
Date: 16:01:16 08/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 1999 at 09:22:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 26, 1999 at 01:54:13, odell hall wrote: > >>On August 26, 1999 at 01:04:19, Bradley Woodward wrote: >> >>>On August 26, 1999 at 00:23:54, odell hall wrote: >>> >>>> What's the Deal on Icc, it seems practically every computer has some kind of >>>>formula, I cannot get a decent game of chess. Not only does humans refuse to >>>>play you if you are a computer, but also computers won't play you. Some of these >>>>operators protect their ratings as if they personally earned them themselves! I >>>>think the whole matter is getting a little rediculous. I excluse these comments >>>>to data, and singacrafty, also superchicken who seem to be generous as far as >>>>allowing games with computers. >>> >>>Well, I've run three 'puters on ICC... MrsLovett (defunct), JudgeTurpin and >>>Beadle. All of them will play anybody who is registered, established and not a >>>free week trail person. If you've got a (C), you can play any standard game you >>>like. Oh - MrsLovett was a crafty clone, and wouldn't play other clones. I've >>>also noplayed a number of cheats and computer operators who don't list their >>>program or machine specs. >>> >>>Of course if you're only targetting the highest rated computers on ICC, then I >>>can't help you. My comps rate around 2500-2600. >> >> >> Yes I forgot to put judge turpin in the list of cool computers. I notice it >>will allow anyone to play it. > >Thanks, >note that many puters have consequent formula's, >all DIEP accounts have in fact. > >Your complaint is quite right about some kids that play now and then >a game and some manuals. > >Generally it goes like this: dudes play you. If they lose games, >then they stop playing. If they win, then they keep on playing. > >If such a dude plays a similar dude that's having also too much >rating for it's compu, then directly they put in their formula !computer >or noplay the other dude. Generally the one losing is doing that. > >This behaviour sucks. This behaviour is because most play anonymeously >on icc. If you want to play more than a few weeks on icc, then you gotta >be fair, instead of playing the ones where you think you can win rating >from. > >Sure, anyone can win rating from mofongo, but its operator picks >simply only 3 0 matches against humans, or tries to 'milk' rating from >a weak compu, in all cases using the engine with which the kid (12 years >of age) thinks he can win with. > >Very laughable are crafty-crafty matches too. Secret (using >crafty at alpha) versus mofongo at 1 0 for 100 games or so. >Kid versus kid. Both kids not watching games as they have to eat >or something. > >But generally most formula's are quite nice. Moron formula is >playing standard *anyone* above 2000. And *anyone* in blitz above 2300. > >In past i had with DIEP and DIEPX accounts also set that guests could >play it too. I dropped that as hardly anyone plays computers unrated. > >I think this formula is very fair. Moron is DIEP at a dual 550 celeron >and it's idling a lot last 3 weeks. Mainly comp-comp games it's playing. > >For some weird reason most GMs prefer 3 0 against Mofongo... ...the idiots. >I also added a 3 0 seek to moron recently and to my big surprise quite >a number of idiots click it and play. > >Gotta be Kasparov among them too... ...as he has to confuse 'diep' in >blue letters with 'deep blue' > >vars moron >Variable settings of Moron: > > rated=1 wild=0 time=5 inc=0 noescape=0 > minseek=0 maxseek=9999 manualaccept=0 useformula=0 > open=1 ropen=1 wopen=1 ccopen=1 mood=0 seek=0 sfilter= > shout=0 sshout=0 kib=1 tell=1 ctell=1 pin=0 gin=0 quietplay=0 busy=0 > style=12 width=240 height=24 wrap=0 prompt=1 highlight=0 bell=0 > oldmatch=0 examine=0 unobserve=1 autoflag=1 > who="" players="ab!" lang="English" > messmail=0 automail=0 mailformat=0 addresspublic=0 subscribe=0 > formula = "!bullet & !freeweek & !wild & autocolor & ((!computer & >((!standard & rating >= 2300) | (standard & rating >= 2000)) & (standard | >bullet | (blitz & etime <= 8))) | >(computer&rating>=myrating-300&((bullet&etime>=2)|(blitz&time >=5&inc>=3)|(etime >>= 30 & standard))))" > Channels: 64 211 > interface="WinBoard 4.0.2 + c:\diep\diepm" It looks like Moron's formula is ok. I'll put it on my list. And I'd like to thank Brad Woodward (sweenytod) for running Judgeturpin and Beadle, they both provide many interesting games. As far as formulas, I recall when I first put Amateur on ICC a couple years back, I wanted it to play everyone, no restrictions. But there are those that tend to abuse honest computer accounts, especially those with identifiable weaknesses (opening, endgame, positional factors, etc). And, there are also those accounts which use a variety of programs, so you might end up playing Phalanx rated at 2250, and lose a bunch of points. Therefore, most computer accounts operated by the author (as well as others) tend to restrict their opponents to similar strength levels. You have to realize that it's difficult enough to get good opponents, and you'd like to maximize your rating so as to attract good humans on occasion. I don't really care about the rating in terms of bragging rights, but rather as a true reflection of strength. That allows me to gauge the effect of code changes. For example, I recently have been running a few older versions, in an attempt to figure out how some recent changes have interacted with certain parameters to weaken play. So, you can see the benefit of playing similar opponents, rather than just anyone. That said, anyone can still play Amateur unrated, and the limit for human standard games is 2000 or so. Will
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.