I will try not to laugh too hard.

The point of this WHOLE argument was comparing WORLD championship skills
throughout the ages by comparing play to Crafty.

I point out that the two strongest programs can be worlds apart, even by
the magic 100cp measure in the same common positions.

That people on the surface get confused by the huge and substantial
difference between ~3100 and the 2500 quoted for Crafty, and that it is
much farther than they would imagine.

And you state that in this world championship case. The case through
the ages. Is that the software could be too strong, and you use
scholastics to try and prove that.

I just can't give it to you here. You might have an argument is some
other argument with a different set of facts. But it just has nothing
to say here.



David Kane wrote:
\
In theory, the engine being too strong could be a source of error
in the analysis, as much as the engines being too weak could.

For example, the best move leads to a win in 20 moves based on
a complicated calculation that no human considers. The second
best move wins more slowly but in a way that strong GMs might be
able to see.

Player makes the best move (for the wrong reasons) overlooking the
alternate way to win. That's evidence of weaker, not
stronger, play.

This happens all of the time if you look at scholastic games. Crafty
sees the win of a rook at 8-ply and deems it superior to winning
a piece at 3-ply. But the 8-ply analysis is essentially irrelevant to the
game because the kids are not able to calculate that deeply.

\