On Apr 28, 7:51 am, raylopez99 wrote:

Not true at all. Crafty could easily tell you which programs
far stronger than itself played the most perfect chess.

Wrong.


This is not debatable.

Wrong again.


For instance, the winning program between two chess
programs playing each other by definition will produce at least one
less error than the losing program

And again. You are completely ignoring the *magnitude* and
severity of these errors.


The only way you can get around your erroneous statement is to qualify
"properly" in "properly analyze". If you mean that it is better to
have an even stronger chess program than Crafty to better ("properly")
rate the champions, of course you're right and nobody would disagree
with you.

Still wrong. There are those who will always refuse
to admit that a computer program has sufficient chess
"understanding" to rate the world champions, though
they are gradually declining in numbers.

IMO, the fastest way to make progress here would
be to utilize the very strongest programs for this sort
of game analysis, and give them plenty of time to
look at each position -- far more than the players had.
It is also good to make full use of endgame tablebases.
One more thing: a trio (for instance) of the top-rated
programs, working in tandem, might well do a better
job of evaluating such games than any single program,
because there would be fewer oversights/misjudgments
where the program mistakenly penalizes a good move
which it simply cannot fathom.


-- help bot