In article .com,
raylopez99 wrote:
On Apr 27, 2:49 pm, "Inconnux" wrote:
Then you conceed my point and indeed the point of Crafty rating chess
players.

OK, now if I used Crafty for analysis of Fritz or Rybka games, it would
certainly not agree and would often call their moves 'errors' even though
they are FAR stronger than crafty.

To properly analyze the world champions
you would need to use a program that is atleast equal in strength to
these champions. Crippled Crafty just doesn't cut it... now if they
used Rybka for analysis I wouldn't have any problem
with the study.

J.Lohner

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

Not only is it debatable, it's not true.

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 Crafty could, at some point,
appreciate this.

Er, how? If Crafty is less able than the losing program, how
can it reliably see the error the losing program couldn't?

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. But that doesn't mean Crafty's efforts are of no value.

No, they simply aren't of enough value.

Perhaps with a 'properly' written program you might have, in a close
tie, a switch between two players say tied for fifth place in the
pantheon of all-time champions

Perhaps a 'properly' written program would completely rewrite the list
because Crafty's analysis was inadequate.

--
Christopher Mattern

NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities