Author: Mark Young
Date: 19:36:49 01/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2000 at 22:08:43, Michael Neish wrote: > >> Obviously there is a atmosphere created at CCC to where any negative comment >>said about a specific program, however honestly made is misconstrued as an >>attack on the programmer. I think this is rediculous. Personally I think the >>article concerning crafty was extremely accurate. Crafty is not in the same >>class as the top commericial programs, This however does not mean that crafty >>sucks. Crafty is a strong master level program, but it falls short of the >>commericials. The truth is the truth, doesn't mean you don't like the >>programmer or are baised against the program. You should take this above post to heart. I have no axe to grind with Bob, nor does he have with me. There is no bad blood between me and Bob. Like always I say what I think and show why I think it on CCC. Do I have an axe to grind also with the programmmer of Rebel, because I thought the lastest version of Rebel was weaker then some other versions. I'm I in the pocket of chessbase because I think Fritz 6 is a great program. Am I playing ED of rebel and Chris of Chess Tiger against each other because I think Chess Tiger plays better chess then Rebel. Get off of it.....I will give my honest opinion of any and all chess programs and topics and show the data to back up why I have come to this conclusion regardless of what the programmers think of it. This does not mean I have an axe to grind with any of them, or I am in the pocket of any of them. >I agree with you that criticism should not be construed as an attack on >the programmer. But in some cases, as it seems to be in this one, the >original criticism seems to come from someone who already has "an axe >to grind" with Bob Hyatt (to borrow an oft-used phrase on recent Crafty- >related threads). It's therefore not cold scientific criticism that >we're dealing with. > >I am not qualified to comment on whether Crafty is or isn't as strong as >commercial programs, but it's unfair to post just one game from an old >version and say that Crafty doesn't understand piece mobility. Doesn't >this indicate bias? The original article that sparked off this >discussion was equally careless. > >Not to mention that it's one thing to say that a program isn't as >good as commercial alternatives and quite another to say "it doesn't >understand piece mobility" when a short number of games cannot prove >it one way or the other, and a quick peek at the source code will >show you that it's incorporated in the evaluation routines. > >And maybe Crafty is a bit of a sensitive area, since people who >appreciate Bob's generosity in making the source code entirely >open and sharing his ideas with everyone (a rarity indeed) are >likely to rally behind him when during difficult times! :) > >Mike.
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.