Author: Roger
Date: 10:01:38 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
My apologies to the moderators and to Mr. DeGorter. I stepped over the boundaries. Roger 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 > >>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.