Author: James Robertson
Date: 11:26:54 04/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2000 at 06:22:21, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >Read the text, don't interprete it. > >He doesn't base his judgement on the results in the tournament. He based it on >Crafty's type of play. Ok. Let's stop again a minute and think. You are now saying that his opinion on Crafty is not based on the results of the tournaments, but just on the type of play he saw in Crafty. In other words, he looked at 20 games and ignored the results because he was just analyzing the type of play. That is fine. He can say if he does not like the way Crafty handles mobility. That is his opinion. But he didn't stop there. He made a strength judement on Crafty. "Crafty is a weak program compared with the best commercial chess programs." You are saying he based this conclusion soley on Crafty's type of play, which he judged inferior (remember, you are saying he didn't take game results into account). Do you realise how little sense this makes? Obviously, if out of those 20 games against the "best commercial chess programs" Crafty scores a nearly even score, its "type of play" in those 20 games MUST be almost as good as that of the "best commercial chess programs". What could his conclusion be based on? It can't be the tournament results (Crafty scores on the top 50% of the time). It can't be the internet ratings (Crafty has higher ratings). It can't be the type of play (Crafty scored nearly 50%, so its type of play must be nearly as good). What other options are there? It must be based on preconceived ideas. James > >The high rating on the net are no proof for him. >He thinks high rating on the net comes from superiour hardware; that's why he >wanted to test on equal hardware. > >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.