Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:38:11 01/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2000 at 01:53:44, Mark Young wrote: >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. Thanks. However, I think computer chess would have done just fine without me, and I don't think it would be one iota behind where it is today. As far as "wasting my life" that was a humerous point, as for many years my wife used to come into the room, see me on the computer, and ask "are you working on that chess shit again?" When the ACM started paying cash prizes, she immediately began to like computer chess, because we always finished near the top. Money gives things a whole new perspective. :) (ditto for Crafty since it is now officially in spec-2000).
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.