Author: walter irvin
Date: 06:20:17 10/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 1999 at 06:27:10, Amir Ban wrote: >On October 27, 1999 at 14:28:15, James B. Shearer wrote: > >>On October 27, 1999 at 11:13:57, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On October 27, 1999 at 00:30:45, James B. Shearer wrote: >>> >>>>On October 26, 1999 at 12:54:02, Amir Ban wrote: >>>> >>>>>I got noplayed by crafty last week. I think it was playing more than 4 games in >>>>>a row rather than disconnecting. At the time crafty's rating was 3146, so it >>>>>seems it's rating jump is a result of noplaying ban. Crafty & clones typically >>>>>gain around 200-300 points when they don't play other computers. I didn't >>>>>realize crafty's noplay list is so long, but looking at it it effectively >>>>>doesn't play top computers any more (ferret is hardly around these days). >>>> >>>> The bit about 200-300 points is hard to believe. In fact I don't >>>>believe it. If this were true the crafty clones would be continuously pumping >>>>rating points from the human pool to the computer pool. To maintain balance >>>>some computers in the computer pool would have to be pumping just as many points >>>>back into the human pool. Which computers do you think are doing this? I've >>>>been playing crafty clones to inflate my rating but apparently this is all wrong >>>>and I should be playing some other computers. Which are they? >>>> James B. Shearer >>> >>>Mofongo, eggsalad, counterplay, wyrm and others. Some of them don't exclude >>>computers in their formula, but they noplay me, and have always done so. I don't >>>know who else they're noplaying. >>> >>>To find them, simply look at the top of the blitz list for crafty clones. To >>>find those that play with everyone, look much lower in the list. >> >> This is not responsive to the point I was making. Suppose crafty >>clones A, B and C play with everyone and have rating 2700. According to you >>they would have rating 2900-3000 if they just played humans. This means that >>when A, B and C do play humans they will be picking up lots of rating points (as >>their rating tries to move from 2700 to 2900-3000). For their rating to stay at >>2700 they must be losing the rating points they are picking up from humans to >>some of the computers they are also playing. Suppose they are losing points to >>computers X, Y and Z. Then X, Y and Z must also be losing the rating points >>they are winning from A, B and C back to the human pool (else the rating of X, Y >>and Z would rise to the point that X, Y and Z stopped winning rating points from >>A, B and C). >> So the question I am asking is what are names of programs X, Y and Z >>whose ratings would shoot up if they noplayed humans? If A, B and C actually >>exist then conservation of rating points means X, Y and Z must exist also. As a >>human I want to play X,Y and Z and grab some of those rating points. >> > >Your argument is too complicated for me to follow. It sounds like you are >assuming that ICC ratings are in some sort of equilibrium and drawing >conclusions based on that. > >I don't think theres any sort of equilibrium there. For one thing, it's not >closed, and players are always entering and exiting the system. Besides, rating >averages show huge drifts over time. I think blitz ratings are drifting >perpetually higher, and in three years we will see above 4000. Another thing >wrong with your argument is that the lower rated crafties will not be popular >with humans since they have alternatives with same version & CPU but much higher >rating. > >Your conclusion, that there are no free rides at ICC, is certainly false. Anyone >who's interested enough can boost his rating several hundred points by careful >opponent selection. There's one or two crafties that have done exactly that. > > >>>Last year there were several top computers playing regularly on ICC, and the >>>standard 'high' rating was in the 2900's. Now serious comp-comp competition is >>>almost disappeared from ICC and crafty, the only one still around, has gone up >>>around 200-300 points. >> >> Maybe crafty got a lot better and has driven the competition from the >>field of battle. >> James B. Shearer > >Maybe, but I can also get a much higher rating than I could hope for last year, >so maybe not. > >Amir Amir i dont see why you are getting so excited about crafty's rating . junior has nothing to prove .junior proves every year at the world championships that it is a top notch program . now with deep junior multi processor it has to be one of the most sought after programs .i would not worry if i were you .
This page took 0.01 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.