Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:21:05 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2000 at 20:32:17, Mark Young wrote: >On January 11, 2000 at 04:35:56, blass uri wrote: > >>On January 10, 2000 at 18:34:41, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On January 10, 2000 at 11:44:03, James Robertson wrote: >>> >>>>On January 10, 2000 at 00:56:19, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 10, 2000 at 00:20:31, James Robertson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 10, 2000 at 00:15:09, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 10, 2000 at 00:01:34, Havergal Brian wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On January 09, 2000 at 23:40:42, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On January 09, 2000 at 23:00:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On January 09, 2000 at 22:13:03, Marc Plum wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On January 09, 2000 at 17:43:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>(snips) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Kasparov is in ChessBase's pocket. However, from this point forward, since >>>>>>>>>>>>we are going to continue to see this, I believe that I will simply choose to >>>>>>>>>>>>say that "no more crafty versions will be available for ChessBase products". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>If it is so bad, they really don't need it anyway. If I see any future versions >>>>>>>>>>>>on their web site, I will let my attorney do the talking. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Obviously, you are entitled to do whatever you want with your program. I >>>>>>>>>>>appreciate your making this excellent program available for free. It's nicer, >>>>>>>>>>>IMHO, to use it in the ChessBase playing interfaces than within Winboard, but >>>>>>>>>>>thanks for making it available as long as you have. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>That being said, I'm not sure why you seem to be blaming ChessBase for what this >>>>>>>>>>>Dutch amateur said on Kasparov's web page. Is there more information you could >>>>>>>>>>>share that makes this clearer? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Marc Plum >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>No... And I am much less concerned now. I had been sent a copy of excerpts >>>>>>>>>>that seemed to imply that it was a chessbase or kasparov-like article. Now I >>>>>>>>>>see the actual author, and don't really care what his opinion is. If you read >>>>>>>>>>the article slowly and carefully, it looks idiotic anyway. I'd have to have >>>>>>>>>>my name on the 'byline'... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Glad to hear it, I was really confused how you were coming to some of your >>>>>>>>>conclusions in your first post. I did not find the article anti-crafty, but you >>>>>>>>>are correct it is a poorly written article with little value pro or con about >>>>>>>>>any chess program. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I would have thought you would have read the original article before jumping to >>>>>>>>>conclusions...but mistakes happen. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I am amazed that you did not find the article to be "anti-crafty". How about >>>>>>>>reading the article again and concentrate on the top few paragraphs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I read the article, it has a paragraph giving the author's observation of crafty >>>>>>>16.6. His observations are accurate in regards to Crafty 16.6 on a single >>>>>>>processor. To make out the article as anti-crafty or venomous or the use of >>>>>>>other such words is nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>>He is obviously biased. He picks a tournament that supports his preconcieved >>>>>>ideas on Crafty, and derives he strength estimate from that. But why not use the >>>>>>tournament later in his article where Crafty comes ahead of other commercial >>>>>>programs? >>>>>> >>>>>>This is the anit-Crafty writing we are talking about. >>>>> >>>>>I disagree, there is nothing anti-crafty about this since he put the good result >>>>>in his article! It seems some are just pissed off that is one good result shown >>>>>did not change is overall opinion of Crafty based on his overall impression of >>>>>crafty's play. I also seen the one good result in the article, but I still >>>>>concur with his opinion, because I own Crafty 16.6 also. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>James >>>> >>>>Ok, since you dismiss that, why not try another tack. Why does he even take time >>>>to MENTION a supposedly weak FREE program IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT COMMERCIAL >>>>PROGRAMS?? >>>> >>>>It is the same as saying "here is my article about strong commercial programs. >>>>I'm leaving out some commercial entrys because they are not strong enough (IE >>>>LChess). But I definately have time to talk about how weak the free Crafty is." >>>> >>>>What kind of writing is that? >>>> >>>>James >>> >>>Let it go....a few words about crafty in a full page article does not make the >>>article anti-crafty. He gave his opinion on a program you get for free when you >>>BUY ALMOST ANY CHESS BASE PROGRAM. So I don't have a problem with him talking >>>about crafty. And I will never understand your logic when the article shows a >>>favoralbe result for crafty(that he did not have to put in) then you use this a >>>proof that article is anti-crafty. Sorry it does not wash. He gave his opinion >>>on Crafty 16.6 play running in a chessbase interface, and he is more then less >>>accurate in his observations. If you think he is wrong about crafty 16.6 in >>>chessbase post your own results that show otherwise. Last Night I started My own >>>match to confirm his observation, playing at the same time control of game 30. I >>>have 20 games played against Fritz 6 vs Crafty 16.6. The results are Fritz 6 15 >>>points Crafty 16.6 5 points. This is not an uncommon result for crafty playing >>>ANY of the top commercial programs. >> >>I am interested to know if there is a difference between crafty as a chessbase >>engine and crafty as the original program with crafty's book. >> >>I remember that crafty16.6 not as an engine for fritz lost 16:14 against Junior5 >>and 16:12 against Fritz5.32 in James walker games(I think they were 1 hour/game) >> >>Crafty16.6 was weaker than the commercials of the same time if it has the same >>hardware but there was no big difference like 17:5 > >I strongly disagree.... > >This question has been asked before, so I dug through RGCC and recoverd my old >post. The answer to you question is there is little difference between them in >terms of strength. All the below results are from full blown Craftys with the >best books, and huge tablebases running on multi cpu computers. The games were >played against computers that were or still on ICC, RGCC, CHESSNET > >************* >Here are Hiarcs7 results vs the Crafty's I have played. > >Drunken +2 -0 =0 2 cpu's = over 1000mhz. >Crafty +6 -2 =1 Quad 400 >BarfusII +2 -0 =0 PII 450 >Cubebox +3 -0 =1 Dual PII 350 >Quart +2 -0 =0 Celeron 450 >FlobII +7 -3 =2 PII 300 >Elminster +6 -0 =3 PII 233 > >(T) +28 -5 =7 Avg. mhz. for crafty per game. 667.425 MHz. > >Hiarcs7(PII450) has scored 79% vs the Crafty's, running with a avg. computer >speed of 667.425 Mhz. As of now Hiarcs7 is showing a + rating of 226 points over >the Crafty's. All games were played at 10 20 or faster. >*************** > > > > > >> >>Uri If you look at the dates when that was done, that was in the 'broken' section as I mentioned several times. For better data, here are some results from the past month vs various commercial programs on ICC: Crafty is on the usual quad xeon/400 machine. opponent/hardware wins draws losses shredder 3/PIII-550 9 5 4 genius/shredder/PIII-600 36 23 9 Tiger 12/PII-525 2 0 1 Nimzo 7.32/xeon-612 23 21 17 Hiarcs 7.32/PIII-600 12 6 5 There are more, but that is enough. All games were played in December or January of this year. As you can see, that gives a bit different view of things. Granted that I have better hardware. But this is far different from the results you posted against older versions. This version is fairly stable as I am trying to slowly tune/tweak for the upcoming ICC chess tournament. Versions tested during major modifications are often much weaker...
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.