Author: James Robertson
Date: 23:49:51 01/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2000 at 02:40:36, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>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
Yes, I agree.... I have met him too and he was very friendly to me. Even if the
article was not so hot, mocking his name is less hot....
James
>
>>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.