Author: Roger
Date: 20:31:34 01/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
Are you concerned with Crafty as it was discussed in de Kook's article, or just
with version 16.6. If with version 16.6, well...it's a little old to be talking
that, so...I'll assume it is with de Kook.
Below was my critique of the article. The content of the article is totally
weird given it's putative purpose. Anyone can see that. Don't you think then,
that his observations might be made for a political purpose, even if true?
I don't think any of the programmers would object to having their programs
critiqued CONSTRUCTIVELY...what folks objected to was a political smear
campaign. You would have to have very poor interpersonal skills...No, you would
have to be interpersonally oblivious not to see that the title of your post
seems to align you with people who would stoop to such smear campaigns.
Either that, or you would have to be eager to smear someone yourself. Your
disingenuousness doesn't pass for sincerity. You're not pulling it off. You're
transparent.
Roger
I took a look at this article, and it seems like total BS. First, it opens by
saying that it's a review of the "best commercially available programs." Then it
IMMEDIATELY heads into a long ANTI-CRAFTY portion, when we all know that Crafty
is free for the download!!!! That says something about the author and his
qualifications.
The author DOES SAY that Crafty is often included as an engine with commercial
programs, but even so....Why in the world would you BEGIN AN ARTICLE DEVOTED TO
A REVIEW OF COMMERCIAL PROGRMS with a review of one of their SUBSIDIARY ENGINES.
You wouldn't.
He goes on to present a tournament he designed to determine the strength of
Crafty ("To compare Crafty with the others..."), ostensibly to provide objective
support for his observation that "Crafty is extremely strong in tactics, but it
makes positional errors and misplays some endgames. It doesn’t understand piece
mobility. Despite its high rating on the Internet, Crafty is a weak program
compared with the best commercial chess programs." The tournament shows Crafty
getting 2.5 points of 10 against Nimzo, Fritz, and the like.
But since Crafty is free for the download, and since it's a BONUS ENGINE, why
does he NEED to design a tournament explicitly to evaluate Crafty? Hint for the
author: "Sir, you should not head directly into a tangent after explicitly
stating the theme of your article." This is UTTERLY STUPID, because it seems to
make Crafty the primary focus of an article entitled "Commercial Chess Programs:
A Comparison."
Worse, later he goes on to IGNORE HIS OWN RESULTS by presenting the outcome of
another tournament he made for fun in which Crafty participated, at the same
time controls. Here are the results, taken from the webpage:
ChessBase home competition. Swiss style 7 rounds, 12 players.
Automatic tournament 30 minutes per player per game;
1 Junior 5 x ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 6½
2 Crafty 16.6 ½ x 0 1 ½ ½ 1 1 4½
3 Junior 4.6 0 1 x 0 1 ½ 1 1 4½
4 Fritz 6 0 0 1 x ½ 1 1 1 4½
5 Nimzo 7.32 0 ½ 0 ½ X 1 1 1 4
6 Hiarcs 7.32 ½ ½ 0 x ½ ½ 1 1 4
7 Hiarcs 4 0 0 ½ x 0 1 0 1 2½
8 Hiarcs 6 0 ½ 1 x 0 0 ½ ½ 2½
9 Fritz 5 0 0 0 0 1 x 1 ½ 2½
10 Fritz 5.32 0 0 0 1 0 x ½ 1 2½
11 Comet B09 0 0 0 1 ½ ½ x 0 2
12 LG2000 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 1 x 2
These data DIRECTLY REFUTE his earlier conclusion that "Despite its high rating
on the Internet, Crafty is a weak program compared with the best commercial
chess programs." In these data, it ties Fritz 6, and beats Nimzo 7.32, and
Hiarcs 7.32, and Fritz 5.32. He then acknowledges that "The only reliable
ranking is that of the so-called Swedish rating list," but neglects to mention
that Crafty places higher in his little tournament than Hiarcs 7.32 and Fritz
5.32, former list champions.
Arguments about the relative strength of various programs could go on forever,
of course, but based on the DATA THE AUTHOR ARGUES FROM, he is cannot exactly be
called bright.
Roger
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.