Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:25:59 01/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2000 at 11:42:56, walter irvin wrote: >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 . I certainly hope so. Or more. :)
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.