Author: walter irvin
Date: 08:42:56 01/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2000 at 09:38:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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). i do not agree , i think you have impacted computer chess .plus on wasting your life just ask your self the question (have you enjoyed what you have done ??) plus i predict that you are not done . i would not be surprised if you had another world title left in you .
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.