In article . com,
help bot wrote:
[...]
Suppose Crafty_12 ply
penalizes either move as inferior to the other --
how does this style issue contribute to ranking
the world champs *accurately*?
... In which case this position is outside the [-2..2]
range, and is discarded by the G&B methodology, really for exactly
the reasons you gave. So Crafty12 would not penalise your move.
Once again, you have demonstrated a complete, utter
inability to read my comments *in context*.

Bit prickly aren't we? ...

Look back at my original post. I was (obviously) replying
to this comment by Ray Lopez: [...]

... Indeed you were. But then you asked a very specific
question about Crafty12 and the ranking of WCs, which can only
["in context"] relate to the work of Guid and Bratko that is the
initial topic of this thread. I gave you the answer: G&B did
consider the situation you describe, and took steps to ensure
that it did not bias their results.

As for the G&B methodology, it was never described
in any detail in any of the articles which I read by
following the links earlier in this thread. Clearly, if I had
wished to skewer their "methodology", I would probably
want to know what it was. But having already learned
that the reason for the sloppiness was a shortage of
time and a complete disregard for quality work, I have
no interest in further details regarding the authors'
methodology.

Yet you are willing to "skewer" their methodology to the
extent of "sloppiness" and "complete disregard for quality work"?
Even though most, if not all, of the criticisms in this thread
are addressed by the authors in a peer-reviewed paper? And if
you have "no interest in further details", why did you ask about
them in relation to your above question [and then take umbrage at
my answer to it]?

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.