Author: blass uri
Date: 01:35:56 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2000 at 18:34:41, Mark Young wrote: >On January 10, 2000 at 11:44:03, James Robertson wrote: > >>On January 10, 2000 at 00:56:19, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On January 10, 2000 at 00:20:31, James Robertson wrote: >>> >>>>On January 10, 2000 at 00:15:09, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 10, 2000 at 00:01:34, Havergal Brian wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 09, 2000 at 23:40:42, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 09, 2000 at 23:00:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On January 09, 2000 at 22:13:03, Marc Plum wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On January 09, 2000 at 17:43:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>(snips) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Kasparov is in ChessBase's pocket. However, from this point forward, since >>>>>>>>>>we are going to continue to see this, I believe that I will simply choose to >>>>>>>>>>say that "no more crafty versions will be available for ChessBase products". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If it is so bad, they really don't need it anyway. If I see any future versions >>>>>>>>>>on their web site, I will let my attorney do the talking. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Obviously, you are entitled to do whatever you want with your program. I >>>>>>>>>appreciate your making this excellent program available for free. It's nicer, >>>>>>>>>IMHO, to use it in the ChessBase playing interfaces than within Winboard, but >>>>>>>>>thanks for making it available as long as you have. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That being said, I'm not sure why you seem to be blaming ChessBase for what this >>>>>>>>>Dutch amateur said on Kasparov's web page. Is there more information you could >>>>>>>>>share that makes this clearer? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Marc Plum >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No... And I am much less concerned now. I had been sent a copy of excerpts >>>>>>>>that seemed to imply that it was a chessbase or kasparov-like article. Now I >>>>>>>>see the actual author, and don't really care what his opinion is. If you read >>>>>>>>the article slowly and carefully, it looks idiotic anyway. I'd have to have >>>>>>>>my name on the 'byline'... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Glad to hear it, I was really confused how you were coming to some of your >>>>>>>conclusions in your first post. I did not find the article anti-crafty, but you >>>>>>>are correct it is a poorly written article with little value pro or con about >>>>>>>any chess program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I would have thought you would have read the original article before jumping to >>>>>>>conclusions...but mistakes happen. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I am amazed that you did not find the article to be "anti-crafty". How about >>>>>>reading the article again and concentrate on the top few paragraphs. >>>>> >>>>>I read the article, it has a paragraph giving the author's observation of crafty >>>>>16.6. His observations are accurate in regards to Crafty 16.6 on a single >>>>>processor. To make out the article as anti-crafty or venomous or the use of >>>>>other such words is nonsense. >>>> >>>>He is obviously biased. He picks a tournament that supports his preconcieved >>>>ideas on Crafty, and derives he strength estimate from that. But why not use the >>>>tournament later in his article where Crafty comes ahead of other commercial >>>>programs? >>>> >>>>This is the anit-Crafty writing we are talking about. >>> >>>I disagree, there is nothing anti-crafty about this since he put the good result >>>in his article! It seems some are just pissed off that is one good result shown >>>did not change is overall opinion of Crafty based on his overall impression of >>>crafty's play. I also seen the one good result in the article, but I still >>>concur with his opinion, because I own Crafty 16.6 also. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>James >> >>Ok, since you dismiss that, why not try another tack. Why does he even take time >>to MENTION a supposedly weak FREE program IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT COMMERCIAL >>PROGRAMS?? >> >>It is the same as saying "here is my article about strong commercial programs. >>I'm leaving out some commercial entrys because they are not strong enough (IE >>LChess). But I definately have time to talk about how weak the free Crafty is." >> >>What kind of writing is that? >> >>James > >Let it go....a few words about crafty in a full page article does not make the >article anti-crafty. He gave his opinion on a program you get for free when you >BUY ALMOST ANY CHESS BASE PROGRAM. So I don't have a problem with him talking >about crafty. And I will never understand your logic when the article shows a >favoralbe result for crafty(that he did not have to put in) then you use this a >proof that article is anti-crafty. Sorry it does not wash. He gave his opinion >on Crafty 16.6 play running in a chessbase interface, and he is more then less >accurate in his observations. If you think he is wrong about crafty 16.6 in >chessbase post your own results that show otherwise. Last Night I started My own >match to confirm his observation, playing at the same time control of game 30. I >have 20 games played against Fritz 6 vs Crafty 16.6. The results are Fritz 6 15 >points Crafty 16.6 5 points. This is not an uncommon result for crafty playing >ANY of the top commercial programs. I am interested to know if there is a difference between crafty as a chessbase engine and crafty as the original program with crafty's book. I remember that crafty16.6 not as an engine for fritz lost 16:14 against Junior5 and 16:12 against Fritz5.32 in James walker games(I think they were 1 hour/game) Crafty16.6 was weaker than the commercials of the same time if it has the same hardware but there was no big difference like 17:5 Uri
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.