Author: Mark Young
Date: 22:53:44 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2000 at 23:11:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. :) Regardless of what Bruce thinks. I know computer chess would not have advanced as far as it has without the Skill and Ideas of you Bob Hyatt. I don't think you wasted your life, computer chess owes you many thanks. And I always remember that regardless of what I think of any crafty chess program.
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.