Author: Mark Young
Date: 21:51:34 01/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2000 at 23:31:34, Roger wrote:
>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
1. Do you think crafty is a par with the top commercail programs?
2. Regardless if you think the article was a smear compaign against crafty or
not, and its a joke to think a few words that are accurate in a full page
article is a smear campaign. Are the observations about crafty's play in the
article true or untrue in your opinion and why?
3. I am not the only one who think the article is accurate in regards to
crafty's play. Do you think we all hate crafty and are agreeing with the article
just to smear crafty?
4. I have made no personal comments about anyone in this thread, I have posted
only my opinion on a chess program and gave my reason and data why I thought the
comments in the article were accurate. I have smeared no one in this thread, can
the same be said for you and other in this thread?
5. Unlike some I have no need to smear anyone, the people that are honest about
crafty know the data will back up the articles statements 1000%. This is not
smear but truth, what is smear is what has been written about the motives of the
man who wrote the article because some disagree with his opinion.
>
>
>
>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.