| |
BGonline.org Forums
Re: Please pardon my venting...
Posted By: OpenWheel In Response To: Please pardon my venting... (Chuck Bower)
Date: Wednesday, 16 May 2007, at 12:19 p.m.
Since I was basically accused of the same thing last spring both directly and by lots of implication I thought it'd be an ok "first post" subject here on Stick's forums...
In the past when I used a bot before posting a GoL opinion it was usually those times when I was very interested in delving into the position and really didn't trust the bot anyway. I often set up "one checker closed out two on the bar" or whatever some of the possible upcoming positions were. I would do the estimates of the chance of reaching those positions by myself, but I wanted to be correct in saying you have a 1/3 chance of getting to X position (my estimate) and from there you will win Y percent (sometimes a bot number or reference number). Since the Y percent positions that I wanted accuracy on, most good players know as reference positions, it seemed a decent way to help provide quality information for discussion. But I did admit to myself that I was doing that too often and too soon. and while I did often tell what study aids were used, sometimes I didn't.
Right before the big "using bot help" flap I even got an email (from a GoL friend) over an answer to a Mary Hickey problem where they said I must have used a bot. And the anwswer was yes I had used a bot to study a similar position for an hour two weeks previously and I did pull up all of that information to make my answer. I was a bit cheezed off since I felt using a reference positon wasn't at all verbotten, but then I realized that, yes, sometimes I did use a bot, so I could understand people panning that practice.
I much less often let bot info color my GoL match choices. I always voted first, although sometimes checked the message board if it was a really close choice as I wanted us to make a good play. So then my post may say "I think the two choices are" and delve into my reasons, but if I wouldn't have seen one of those choices or know the reasons before checking the message board I never saw it as crucial to point that out. But if my post was later in the day I may already have known the 2-ply result. Now, "after the flap" I make sure I don't know any bot info or I don't post.
Unfortunately since I've jettisoned (a year ago) my previous habit of delving deeper fairly regularly before posting, my game declined. That was a useful study habit, and trying to provide quality info was a good motivator. I'm finally doing it a lot again, the last few weeks, and my game is back on the upswing, (woohoo! playing like crap sucks!) but I wouldn't DARE publish any of the analysis on GoL for fear that the proper amount of "dwell time" hadn't yet passed on the problem. lol
So now and for the past year when I post you can basically be sure that what I claim to know is basically what I'd know over the board which is to say, not a hell of a lot. But that's ok. It's still fun and I've often had new players that invited me on Fibs or Gamesgrid thank me for the analysis anyway, saying it helped their game. Which makes me feel good even if I'm thinking "that was out of my ass and I'm not sure it's right" lol
So, speaking as a reformed sometime bot user... Now only in a few instances by accident (Checked bot much later but then wanted my original thoughts out there anyway) or enough time has passed that everyone had plenty of time to answer the problem. And then I try to remember to say what study aids I've used. ("Played it out", "2-ply", etc.) As I've supported the GoL board since within a year of inception I think it's best to just support the community standards.
Been browsing this forum for awhile. And heavily since the first play65 GoL outage. Thought I'd post my thoughts on the big bot issue. Somewhat surprised it matters to people but I can see their viewpoint. Anybody can use any supercomputer or reference positions to respond to my posts, I don't care, and I very much would want their analysis. But to support the standards and refrain from pissing off Chuck (who I don't think reads my posts anymore anyway :) it'd be nice if you stated if bots were consulted.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.