Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 23:40:36 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 I have met Cock DeGorter. He is a real person and he doesn't deserve to be treated like this. Perhaps another moderator will come along and delete this, but I would rather ask that people keep their comments civil. If you want to argue against some viewpoint, then please do it with alternate expressions of viewpoint. I didn't like the article either but there is no need to get personal. Please do not repeat this. bruce >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 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.