Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:34:41 01/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2000 at 11:44:03, James Robertson wrote: >On January 10, 2000 at 00:56:19, Mark Young wrote: > >>On January 10, 2000 at 00:20:31, James Robertson wrote: >> >>>On January 10, 2000 at 00:15:09, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On January 10, 2000 at 00:01:34, Havergal Brian wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 09, 2000 at 23:40:42, Mark Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 09, 2000 at 23:00:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 09, 2000 at 22:13:03, Marc Plum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On January 09, 2000 at 17:43:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>(snips) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Kasparov is in ChessBase's pocket. However, from this point forward, since >>>>>>>>>we are going to continue to see this, I believe that I will simply choose to >>>>>>>>>say that "no more crafty versions will be available for ChessBase products". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If it is so bad, they really don't need it anyway. If I see any future versions >>>>>>>>>on their web site, I will let my attorney do the talking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Obviously, you are entitled to do whatever you want with your program. I >>>>>>>>appreciate your making this excellent program available for free. It's nicer, >>>>>>>>IMHO, to use it in the ChessBase playing interfaces than within Winboard, but >>>>>>>>thanks for making it available as long as you have. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That being said, I'm not sure why you seem to be blaming ChessBase for what this >>>>>>>>Dutch amateur said on Kasparov's web page. Is there more information you could >>>>>>>>share that makes this clearer? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Marc Plum >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No... And I am much less concerned now. I had been sent a copy of excerpts >>>>>>>that seemed to imply that it was a chessbase or kasparov-like article. Now I >>>>>>>see the actual author, and don't really care what his opinion is. If you read >>>>>>>the article slowly and carefully, it looks idiotic anyway. I'd have to have >>>>>>>my name on the 'byline'... >>>>>> >>>>>>Glad to hear it, I was really confused how you were coming to some of your >>>>>>conclusions in your first post. I did not find the article anti-crafty, but you >>>>>>are correct it is a poorly written article with little value pro or con about >>>>>>any chess program. >>>>>> >>>>>>I would have thought you would have read the original article before jumping to >>>>>>conclusions...but mistakes happen. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I am amazed that you did not find the article to be "anti-crafty". How about >>>>>reading the article again and concentrate on the top few paragraphs. >>>> >>>>I read the article, it has a paragraph giving the author's observation of crafty >>>>16.6. His observations are accurate in regards to Crafty 16.6 on a single >>>>processor. To make out the article as anti-crafty or venomous or the use of >>>>other such words is nonsense. >>> >>>He is obviously biased. He picks a tournament that supports his preconcieved >>>ideas on Crafty, and derives he strength estimate from that. But why not use the >>>tournament later in his article where Crafty comes ahead of other commercial >>>programs? >>> >>>This is the anit-Crafty writing we are talking about. >> >>I disagree, there is nothing anti-crafty about this since he put the good result >>in his article! It seems some are just pissed off that is one good result shown >>did not change is overall opinion of Crafty based on his overall impression of >>crafty's play. I also seen the one good result in the article, but I still >>concur with his opinion, because I own Crafty 16.6 also. >> >> >>> >>>James > >Ok, since you dismiss that, why not try another tack. Why does he even take time >to MENTION a supposedly weak FREE program IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT COMMERCIAL >PROGRAMS?? > >It is the same as saying "here is my article about strong commercial programs. >I'm leaving out some commercial entrys because they are not strong enough (IE >LChess). But I definately have time to talk about how weak the free Crafty is." > >What kind of writing is that? > >James Let it go....a few words about crafty in a full page article does not make the article anti-crafty. He gave his opinion on a program you get for free when you BUY ALMOST ANY CHESS BASE PROGRAM. So I don't have a problem with him talking about crafty. And I will never understand your logic when the article shows a favoralbe result for crafty(that he did not have to put in) then you use this a proof that article is anti-crafty. Sorry it does not wash. He gave his opinion on Crafty 16.6 play running in a chessbase interface, and he is more then less accurate in his observations. If you think he is wrong about crafty 16.6 in chessbase post your own results that show otherwise. Last Night I started My own match to confirm his observation, playing at the same time control of game 30. I have 20 games played against Fritz 6 vs Crafty 16.6. The results are Fritz 6 15 points Crafty 16.6 5 points. This is not an uncommon result for crafty playing ANY of the top commercial programs. Now tell me his observations are wrong again! Crafty without a huge hardware advantage (running on quad cpu's) is just out gunned by the top commercial programs.
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.