Author: Roger
Date: 09:59:22 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
With regard to your first item, whether Crafty is on par with the top
commercials is IRRELEVANT to me. The author wrote an article ostensibly about
the commercial chess programs, then bit into Crafty (not even commercial) for
some reason, then reviewed the programs which shoulud have been the focus of his
article under the heading "Some other commercial programs," then ignored his own
data that refuted his conclusions about Crafty. Whether you agree or disagree
about Crafty, that is very poor science.
With regard to your second item, YOUR observations about Crafty may or may not
be accurate. I do not know. I do know, however, that when you draw conclusions
from data, you ought to do so in a nonbiased manner. You ought not ignore your
own findngs, as the author does.
With regard to your third and fourth items, from my perspective, Crafty's play
is beside the point. If you want to start a disinterested and constructive
thread on Crafty's play, you could certainly pick a better time to do it than
when political rivalries are simmering. You would have to be interpersonally
oblivious to believe that the title of your post makes you look anything less
than disingenuous.
With regard to your fifth item, you miss the point again. The issue is NOT
crafty's play, the issue is whether the generalizations made from the data were
made in a disinterested, scientific manner, rather than a political one.
Certainly it is possible that some of the author's assertions were accurate to
some extent. But I can't trust his conclusions, you see, because he choose to
ignore his own data, and because the way the article is structured certainly
makes it appear as a hacket job. The motives are of the article are clear.
If you are sincerely interested in the play of "classic" versions of Crafty, as
the header of this thread indicates, you could definitely pick a better time.
You really do look as if you are taking sides.
Roger
On January 11, 2000 at 00:51:34, Mark Young wrote:
>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 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.