Author: Jeroen van Dorp
Date: 03:40:01 04/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2000 at 20:17:04, Peter Skinner wrote: Peter, Just for the sake of proper reasoning. Not for starting an argument with you, but I am becoming a bit baffled at the strong feelings taking over some people in discussing Crafty. Look at your own reasoning: >Obviously either A) He didn't have setting correctly done. B) He only used the >Chessbase version of Crafty For the record: he did, as you can read in my translation. ( which I find to be rather weak compared to the >actual Windows version ). Where is your proof? The fact that you find that? > >He should not be commenting on a freeware program in that article, as he was >comparing "Commercial" programs. You are right. >Crafty 16.6 was and still is one of the best Crafty versions today. As a test a >few weeks ago, I ran 16.6 again on FICS and it only resulted in a minor 40 point >drop in rank compared to 17.10 under blitz time controls. This could be due to >the emmense learning I have with that program, or that it got lucky, but none >the less, I would like to see the same test done with either 16.19, or 17.10 and Is this sufficient proof in comparison with the five 30' round robin tournaments of the Gorter? Is "could be due to" or "could have gotten lucky" to accepted as the final discarding of the arguments of De Gorter that Crafty 16.6 has flaws? The fact that you judge so? >I assure you the results would be VERY different, as Crafty on equal hardware I >find is if not equal to the commercials, almost better. > Where is your proof? Your assurance? >Crafty does have an advantage in hardware, even if on equal systems due to the >bloated interfaces the commercial programs use, thus not being able to use as >much hash. > Where is your proof? Did you test that? What benchmarks? Where are the results? >Crafty has although a good book, compared to some of the commercial programs, I >can assure you that it is better than the general.ctg that comes with most of >the Chessbase engines. > Where is your proof? Your assurance again? >I definately think one should think before writing such an article, as it is >better to look like an ass for having an opinion about something you know about, >than look like a complete idiot for having an opinion that is completely wrong. Why *do* you think so? And why *definitely*? Based on this posting I must conclude you have hardly if no proof at all yourself in stating that he is wrong, yet you deny him to base an opinion on his "insufficient proof"? The only valid thing you and I can conclude, together with De Gorter, is that he shouldn't have compared a freeware development project like Crafty with established commercial software playing for sure in their development. What's left is a disagreement with his observation that Crafty plays unbalanced. Discussions about Crafty are becoming here weirder and weirder all the time. We are talking a chess program, not a religious artifarct. Keep your reasoning proper, and don't state gut feelings as the gospel truth. That goes for you, me and for De Gorter as well. Jeroen ;-}
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.