In article om,
help bot wrote:
Once again, you have demonstrated a complete, utter
inability to read my comments *in context*.
Bit prickly aren't we? ...
Nah. I just wanted to make it clear that you have
*repeatedly* misinterpreted words I have written by
taking them out of their proper context. [...]

I think I'd prefer others to judge this rather than enter
into a "did", "didn't", "'tis", "'tisn't" slanging match; shall
we just agree to differ?

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.
Not in my opinion it isn't. When I entered this thread,
it consisted of a couple of links to articles which I later
downloaded and read in full.

The very first "word" in this thread was one of those
links -- to the Chessbase article about *the work of Guid and
Bratko*; and the thread title clearly relates to that work.
Has anyone mentioned Crafty12 *other than* in relation to it?

Now, what you are
suggesting is that those articles are not the subject of
this thread, but the original paper upon which these
"summaries" were based was, and that just ain't so.

I made no such suggestion. But you asked a question
which was not answered in the Chessbase articles, but was in
the original paper. Did you want to know the answer or not?

You might just as well argue that the thread is about
my game at RedHotPawn -- because it was discussed
at some later point. Look back at the links.

If I asked a question in this thread about RHP, then
you might quite reasonably think that it was sparked by your
mentions in this thread. But whereas RHP has been a minor
part of this thread, the work of G&B, and more specifically
the use of Crafty12 in that work, has been very prominent.

So, why don't I go and find that paper and read it in
full like the summaries? Simple: it has already been
shown that a myriad of excuses substitute for any real
desire for *quality* work; hence the choice of a 12 ply
Crafty; and hence the moronic sample size in certain
cases like, say, GM Fischer. In sum, it looks like a
waste of my time (see below).

From a reading merely of the two CB articles, I would
very likely agree with you [apart from the emotive words]. But
the full article presents at least a somewhat different picture.
That doesn't mean that you should read it; life is too short
to read everything that might possibly be of interest, and the
paper is not that marvellous. But nor is it total rubbish,
and at least those who intend to use words like "moronic" in
relation to it perhaps ought to critique what they actually
did rather than the "red top" version of it.

[...]
The fact that we are back to discussing the "G&B"
end of things once again shows that you have missed
the point of what I was actually writing about; it had to
do with positional moves and tactical moves allegedly
being "one and the same thing", you should recall.

I recall that perfectly well. But having written about
that, you then asked a question about Crafty12 and the ranking
of WCs.

Yet you are willing to "skewer" their methodology to the
extent of "sloppiness" and "complete disregard for quality work"?
Yes, I am. (As far as I can see, any bum off the
street could read their paper, copy their methods,
and by simply setting Crafty to *13 plys*, best their
results in terms of quality).

So? That [mutatis mutandis] applies to a very large
number, perhaps the majority, of scientific papers. We all
have to take decisions about how much computer time or other
resource it is worth pouring in to some experiment. Crafty13
would have occupied their roomful of computers for several
months, and would *probably* not have shown anything new.
If you, or anyone else, think that Rybka or some other engine
[inc Crafty13] would show different results, then you have
enough information to "copy their methods" and "best their
results". Go ahead. My expectation is that you will get the
same results, to good approximation. If so, then you will
have confirmed to each other than the methodology is doing
something objective, even if not what G&B claim. If not,
then you can publish a paper [or at least a letter in ICGAJ]
showing that G&B are wrong, and gain credit for it.

Even though most, if not all, of the criticisms in this thread
are addressed by the authors in a peer-reviewed paper?
Are their "peers" up to our standards here, I wonder?

It's a bit of a stretch to assume that they are not.
ICGAJ may not be "Nature", but it's the leading journal for
computer game theory, and some pretty bright people write
and review for it.

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]?
You're not making any logical sense here; I asked
nothing about their methodology;

Then you need to explain what your question *was* about.
Are you *really* interested in Crafty12 and the ranking of WCs
for any reason *other than* to discuss G&B's work?

[...]
For my money, I'll take the strongest chess program
in the world and if necessary, start off by eliminating
GM Steinitz and his predecessors to save time; [...]

No-one is preventing you.

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