Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:11:27 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2000 at 22:45:52, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On January 11, 2000 at 18:25:44, Mark Young wrote: > >>No one is just talking about one game, i agree any program can have a bad game, >>even Ferret, and you know my opinion on Ferret. And it has nothing to do with >>like or dislike of the programmer. I judge Ferret on what it shows me in games, >>as I do with Crafty. And I don't think it is smear to express ones opinion on >>any program as long as it is accurate. The only smear I seen was to the person >>who wrote one article and devoted a few words to Crafty that were accurate. Now >>some on this board think it is insane to say Crafty is weaker then the top >>commercial programs, and it is smear to explain why it is weaker. So I think the >>only way to resolve a dispute like this is with some games. > >I didn't like Cock's article because I thought it used bad data to try to >support a proposition that Crafty was weak. I don't say that I am going to >fight to the death to prevent anyone from presenting that proposition. > >Pick a random person who doesn't like Bob, and have them write an article about >Crafty. Do you think it is possible that there'd be little truth in the >article, even if every sentence in the article were literally true? I can >easily believe this. > >Just take that Hiarcs-Ferret game and annotate it as if white is brilliant and >black is completely incompetent, and you'd have an article that is factually >true and yet allows hugely different conclusions than if you write the same >article about Ferret-Fritz. > >Perhaps the issue here is that Cock raised doubts in my mind about his motives >because of the way he presented his case. Even if everything is true I think >the article still stunk. Notice that I didn't argue against the truth of the >article, since I don't know if it is true or not. > >I think people have a tough time talking about computer strength because very >few people are competent enough to analyze the games properly with their own >minds. Instead they use statistically meaningless short matches and >tournaments, analysis made by other programs, and emphasis on class-B mistakes >that every program still makes. > >If someone wants to talk about games from a higher-level perspective, I would be >happy to listen, and I bet Bob would be as well. > >Likewise, if someone wants to learn enough statistics to perform a match and >accurately express what the results mean, it would be hard to argue with the >result, although if this effort is undertaken as a precursor to telling Bob that >he's wasted his life, or something similar to this, it might reflect rather >poorly upon the experimenter. > >bruce As far as your last sentence goes, I have been hearing that for years. Until my wife gave up telling me. :)
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.