On May 18, 5:14 am, raylopez99 wrote:
On May 17, 1:27 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

If you are proposing a methodology (ranking players
according to move analysis), you can't simply
pull an algorithm out of thin air and pretend that it means
something. The burden is on the authors to *show* that
it is meaningful.

They have you idiot. It was a peer reviewed paper.


Uh oh. It looks like someone forgot to learn the
difference between ad hominem and reason. (Maybe
they will let RL back into school despite this glaring
mental handicap?)


*They* should have done (at least partial)
analyses at much deeper ply, or on weaker players (if
computational time was severely limited), if they want
their method to have any credibility.

You don't understand 'normalization' do you, dimwit? Read all 220+
replies, especially mine and Dr. Walker's, and commit to memory. Then
and only then post here again.

Wow. In addition to lacking reasoning skills, this
poor sap now thinks he is "in charge". LOL!


I see you flunked out of school, or should have.

Well, at least Fishead knows about the *existence* of
schools -- that's a start.


They should
also have looked for the correspondence with this
ranking method and alternate ranking methods (e.g. ELO)
especially in those cases where the alternate method
has a high degree of credibility (contemporary players
playing actively in a pool)

Means nothng. And the list presented does correlate very well with
ELO.

Nonsense. Every posting I have read here claims the
same thing: that they ranked GM Capablanca above such
players as GMs Lasker, Fischer, Kasparov, etc. -- all of
whom were higher, not lower rated. It looks like a flaw
from that particular angle.


Jeff Sonas' work found that Capa was #1 using ELO, and Kramnik
beat Kasparov and has a high Elo. Not the brightest bulb in the room,
are ya?

Look at the official ratings, Fishead; if anyone should
have stood out, it was GMs like Lasker, Fischer, and
Kasparov -- NOT GMs Capablanca and Kramnik.
Those two may stand apart because of a stylistic
issue, but not in terms of results, which are what
chess ratings are based on.

I think it is fairly obvious that players like GM Tal for
instance, who won by playing suboptimal moves, are
getting penalized for not closely approximating the
computeresque style of play. This reveals a deeper
issue he why rank the world champs on anything
other than the "game" they were playing, which was
trying to win, not to play "perfectly"?


The two most basic questions anyone should have
upon reading this work are 1. How many moves do
you need to analzye? 2. How deeply do you need
to analyze them?

Shiite for brains: 1/ one move is sufficient,

Uh oh. Apparently there must be a missing cap,
'cause it looks to me like most of his brains have
somehow "leaked out". Either that, or he was
shorted at the fish factory that made him.


but logic tells you
more moves will give greater and finer "granularity".

Hmm. Quite an improvement here. Maybe it's just
an intermittent mental short circuit?


So with only
one move lookahead you could only rank "patzers" (like you) from "non-
patzers".

I take it Fishead is assuming the program has the
ability to do check-and-capture extensions, on top
of the numbers he is actually discussing; it might be
helpful if he were to make this point clearer.


With Crafty's 6+ move event horizon, you can get very good
granularity.

Just how good is "very good", though? We need it
to be good enough to *accurately* rank the world
champions, and that is a tall order. In fact, were a
human to try this, his results would be summarily
dismissed as mere opinion -- at least by those who
objected to the results.


Perhaps not as good as Rybka's but very good.

Oh, I like that. Did you see the way he struggled
to keep a straight face while pretending not to know
for certain that Rybka was better-equipped for this
sort of thing than Crafty_12_plys? Very nice.

Oh, but he seems to have overlooked the central
idea: that no *evidence* was presented to show
that Crafty_12_plys was good enough for the job.
Damned lawyers. Always asking for stuff that
doesn't even exist!


And,
again, the principle of normalization says you do NOT need to look
further ahead than the best players.

Nobody had mentioned that straw man position, until
just NOW.


Why am I wasting my time with you?

Because you have nothing constructive to do?

I think going back to school would be your best
try; after all, until you learn to think more clearly,
you're not going to get very far in life.


Your own social worker says you're hopeless.

Things could be worse; you might have told us
about your probation officer or your prison's warden.
Now we can relax, knowing that you are in the
hands of a professional, and getting th help you
so desperately need. Say hello to Skippy for us.


The excuse that it might have been hard to
address (which I don't believe, by the way) is
no excuse at all.-

You are an excuse. Quit wasting Dr. Andy's time.

Hey -- maybe you could get a job protecting those
posters who are unable to defend themselves by
unleashing the floodgates of ad hominem? It's
right up your alley, and you already have internet
access. Just a thought... .



He is badgered as
it is by the idiot Help Bot,

Wrong. An idiot is someone with an IQ in a range
far beyond my mental prowess; this just goes to
show that you rant and rave without first getting the
relevant facts (which, of course, we already knew).


and now you have to chime in.

Again. He posted here before, but it must have
slipped out of your mind. Try retracing your steps;
the missing cap could be anywhere. If only your
brain were more solid, and not quite so watery.


This is my very last post here.

Nobody believes you, any more than they did
Sanny. The reason is obvious: you keep making
pie-in-the-sky promises, but never deliver the goods.

In fact, I believe the odds-makers in Vegas actually
*increase* the odds of follow-up post each time you
make another such promise as this. Have you
considered a job as a petty politician?


Sorry I even started this thread with
the retarded hoi polloi of this forum.

Take some consolation in the fact that you are not
alone; the other fish (including koi and pollack) feel
your pain. Plus, a few of them may have standards
similar to your own (catfish, other bottom-dwellers).

-- help bot