Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost ther

[That famous whinger: Dan]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: That famous whinger: Dann Corbit at 24 June 2000 01:35:49:

Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws
-------------- ---- --- --- ---- ------- ------- -------
Crafty : 2520 16 22 1073 67.3 % 2394 25.4 %
SOS : 2449 31 36 352 61.2 % 2370 20.2 %
LGoliath : 2434 23 19 822 53.4 % 2410 26.5 %
Comet : 2433 18 18 1136 56.6 % 2386 24.1 %
AnMon : 2417 25 22 678 52.7 % 2398 24.0 %
Phalanx : 2407 20 24 803 49.8 % 2408 19.3 %
Gromit3 : 2378 58 50 139 52.2 % 2363 19.4 %
TCBishop : 2378 24 27 622 47.3 % 2397 20.9 %
Amy : 2376 27 55 339 73.6 % 2198 11.5 %
Gromit2 : 2362 25 27 545 44.1 % 2403 24.4 %
Francesca : 2344 24 27 572 45.2 % 2378 25.3 %
ZChess : 2333 21 25 701 47.6 % 2349 23.1 %
Bringer : 2315 26 30 499 48.5 % 2325 21.2 %
Yace : 2296 42 45 207 58.5 % 2237 20.3 %
ArasanX : 2293 37 31 344 51.5 % 2282 20.3 %
LambChop : 2283 41 34 291 38.3 % 2365 19.6 %
Ant : 2262 31 30 436 54.5 % 2230 18.6 %
GnuChess4 : 2255 65 67 99 46.5 % 2279 14.1 %
InmiChess3 : 2249 50 45 187 51.9 % 2236 16.0 %
ExChess3 : 2232 26 32 507 60.4 % 2159 14.2 %
Knightx : 2222 49 57 146 48.6 % 2231 19.2 %
Dragon : 2172 59 36 212 30.0 % 2319 15.6 %
GnuChess5 : 2159 50 66 130 64.2 % 2057 16.2 %
Fortress : 2145 67 68 92 56.0 % 2104 16.3 %
LDBlanche : 2133 57 42 170 34.1 % 2247 20.0 %
Amyan : 2125 60 59 129 46.5 % 2149 9.3 %
Cilian : 2051 46 40 213 39.0 % 2129 20.7 %
Gully2 : 2044 117 65 67 28.4 % 2205 9.0 %
ColChess : 2041 65 69 92 58.2 % 1984 18.5 %
SSEChess : 2010 81 49 114 29.4 % 2162 14.9 %
Sjeng : 2005 48 42 205 40.2 % 2074 17.1 %
Averno : 1999 61 34 239 31.0 % 2138 7.5 %
Crux : 1966 109 117 35 45.7 % 1996 17.1 %
Freyr : 1951 63 97 83 64.5 % 1848 3.6 %
NewRival : 1928 100 114 37 45.9 % 1957 21.6 %
DChess : 1927 77 57 109 39.0 % 2005 6.4 %
Chessterfield : 1873 64 20 491 20.1 % 2113 4.3 %
Monik : 1856 73 78 71 44.4 % 1895 21.1 %
Faile : 1831 130 67 60 25.0 % 2021 10.0 %
TSCP : 1806 52 48 172 42.7 % 1857 13.4 %
SnailSCP : 1780 231 82 35 12.9 % 2112 8.6 %
Zephyr : 1739 193 95 31 21.0 % 1970 9.7 %
Ozwald : 1725 68 66 91 42.3 % 1779 18.7 %
Noonian : 1691 158 47 90 14.4 % 2000 6.7 %
Storm : 1595 142 56 77 22.1 % 1814 2.6 %
LarsenVB : 1561 292 185 11 9.1 % 1961 18.2 %
Golem01 : 1403 242 64 49 8.2 % 1823 8.2 %
Raffaela : 997 0 0 3 0.0 % 1597 0.0 %


my ftp site

[The nitpicking twit Mogen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: The nitpicking twit Mogens Larsen at 24 June 2000 01:49:54:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: That famous whinger: Dann Corbit at 24 June 2000 01:35:49:

Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws
-------------- ---- --- --- ---- ------- ------- -------
Crafty : 2520 16 22 1073 67.3 % 2394 25.4 %
SOS : 2449 31 36 352 61.2 % 2370 20.2 %
LGoliath : 2434 23 19 822 53.4 % 2410 26.5 %
Comet : 2433 18 18 1136 56.6 % 2386 24.1 %
AnMon : 2417 25 22 678 52.7 % 2398 24.0 %
Phalanx : 2407 20 24 803 49.8 % 2408 19.3 %
Gromit3 : 2378 58 50 139 52.2 % 2363 19.4 %
TCBishop : 2378 24 27 622 47.3 % 2397 20.9 %
Amy : 2376 27 55 339 73.6 % 2198 11.5 %
Gromit2 : 2362 25 27 545 44.1 % 2403 24.4 %
Francesca : 2344 24 27 572 45.2 % 2378 25.3 %
ZChess : 2333 21 25 701 47.6 % 2349 23.1 %
Bringer : 2315 26 30 499 48.5 % 2325 21.2 %
Yace : 2296 42 45 207 58.5 % 2237 20.3 %

Someone should play a few more games with Yace to get the rating inflated a little. Otherwise, a sensible ranking among the top programs.
Best wishes...
Mogens

[Stefano Gemma]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Stefano Gemma at 24 June 2000 09:15:22:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: That famous whinger: Dann Corbit at 24 June 2000 01:35:49:

Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws
-------------- ---- --- --- ---- ------- ------- -------
Crafty : 2520 16 22 1073 67.3 % 2394 25.4 %
SOS : 2449 31 36 352 61.2 % 2370 20.2 %
Storm : 1595 142 56 77 22.1 % 1814 2.6 %
LarsenVB : 1561 292 185 11 9.1 % 1961 18.2 %
Golem01 : 1403 242 64 49 8.2 % 1823 8.2 %
Raffaela : 997 0 0 3 0.0 % 1597 0.0 %

[...]
Maybe the ELO for Raffaela is a little understimated. The strength should be a middle from Golem and LarsenVB. In other tournament it has been calculated to about 1500. Follow this link, to get more information:
http://www.geocities.com/lyapko/lgwbg.htm
Thanks for your good work, it is very interesting to me.
Ciao!!!

[Dann Corbit]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Dann Corbit at 24 June 2000 09:18:43:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Stefano Gemma at 24 June 2000 09:15:22:

Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws
-------------- ---- --- --- ---- ------- ------- -------
Crafty : 2520 16 22 1073 67.3 % 2394 25.4 %
SOS : 2449 31 36 352 61.2 % 2370 20.2 %
Storm : 1595 142 56 77 22.1 % 1814 2.6 %
LarsenVB : 1561 292 185 11 9.1 % 1961 18.2 %
Golem01 : 1403 242 64 49 8.2 % 1823 8.2 %
Raffaela : 997 0 0 3 0.0 % 1597 0.0 %

[...]
Maybe the ELO for Raffaela is a little understimated. The strength should be a middle from Golem and LarsenVB. In other tournament it has been calculated to about 1500. Follow this link, to get more information:
http://www.geocities.com/lyapko/lgwbg.htm
Thanks for your good work, it is very interesting to me.
Ciao!!!

With 3 games, the standard deviation is essentially infinite. Since your program was entered so late, I have very little data. At any rate, +500 points still keeps Raffaela in the current group.
I would like some directives from you as to you to play the program.
Should I use 6 ply, 7 ply or something else for G/60?
Because you have a command line option, I am not adverse to using that.


My FTP site

[Stefano Gemma]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Stefano Gemma at 25 June 2000 00:31:35:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Dann Corbit at 24 June 2000 09:18:43:

Raffaela : 997 0 0 3 0.0 % 1597 0.0 %

I would like some directives from you as to you to play the program.
Should I use 6 ply, 7 ply or something else for G/60?
Because you have a command line option, I am not adverse to using that.

If G/60 means 60 minutes per game, on a fast machine (PII 450) you can use ply 8 or 9. (/L9)
Ciao!!!

[Dann [not glowing] Corbit]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Dann [not glowing] Corbit at 25 June 2000 06:49:26:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Stefano Gemma at 25 June 2000 00:31:35:

Raffaela : 997 0 0 3 0.0 % 1597 0.0 %

I would like some directives from you as to you to play the program.
Should I use 6 ply, 7 ply or something else for G/60?
Because you have a command line option, I am not adverse to using that.

If G/60 means 60 minutes per game, on a fast machine (PII 450) you can use ply 8 or 9. (/L9)

You might send me a table of recommendations.
I will run on machines from 300 MHz to 700 MHz.


My FTP site

[Stefano Gemma]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Stefano Gemma at 25 June 2000 08:59:03:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Dann [not glowing] Corbit at 25 June 2000 06:49:26:

Raffaela : 997 0 0 3 0.0 % 1597 0.0 %

I would like some directives from you as to you to play the program.
Should I use 6 ply, 7 ply or something else for G/60?
Because you have a command line option, I am not adverse to using that.

If G/60 means 60 minutes per game, on a fast machine (PII 450) you can use ply 8 or 9. (/L9)

You might send me a table of recommendations.
I will run on machines from 300 MHz to 700 MHz.

from 300 to 500 MHz: ply 8
over 500 MHz: ply 9
I'm working in the week-end to the automatic time setting. I hope to complete this feature today, so we don't will have to take care of any setting in the future.
Ciao!!!
Stefano

[Aaron]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Aaron at 25 June 2000 18:35:08:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: The nitpicking twit Mogens Larsen at 24 June 2000 01:49:54:

Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws
-------------- ---- --- --- ---- ------- ------- -------
Crafty : 2520 16 22 1073 67.3 % 2394 25.4 %
SOS : 2449 31 36 352 61.2 % 2370 20.2 %
LGoliath : 2434 23 19 822 53.4 % 2410 26.5 %
Comet : 2433 18 18 1136 56.6 % 2386 24.1 %
AnMon : 2417 25 22 678 52.7 % 2398 24.0 %
Phalanx : 2407 20 24 803 49.8 % 2408 19.3 %
Gromit3 : 2378 58 50 139 52.2 % 2363 19.4 %
TCBishop : 2378 24 27 622 47.3 % 2397 20.9 %
Amy : 2376 27 55 339 73.6 % 2198 11.5 %
Gromit2 : 2362 25 27 545 44.1 % 2403 24.4 %
Francesca : 2344 24 27 572 45.2 % 2378 25.3 %
ZChess : 2333 21 25 701 47.6 % 2349 23.1 %
Bringer : 2315 26 30 499 48.5 % 2325 21.2 %
Yace : 2296 42 45 207 58.5 % 2237 20.3 %

Someone should play a few more games with Yace to get the rating inflated a >little. Otherwise, a sensible ranking among the top programs.

What makes you think that Yace is underrated? If this was Blitz I agree , but at g/60, it looks right..Besides the uncertainity of Yace is not too bad..Gromit3 is even worse..
I've usually don't really belive that chess engines vary that much using different time controls..Some like Gormit2.0 or Fritz or Golaith do..
Yace is one of those engines that perform a lot stronger at Blitz..I think..

Aaron

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 25 June 2000 19:30:38:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Aaron at 25 June 2000 18:35:08:

What makes you think that Yace is underrated? If this was Blitz I agree , but at g/60, it looks right..Besides the uncertainity of Yace is not too bad..Gromit3 is even worse..

Nothing at all. I just noticed that it had played less games than most of the programs above. This and my belief that it's better than Bringer and Zchess caused the comment. It is strange that so few games have been played with Gromit 3, but the rating probably isn't too far off.
Best wishes...
Mogens

[Aaron]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Aaron at 25 June 2000 20:22:42:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 25 June 2000 19:30:38:

What makes you think that Yace is underrated? If this was Blitz I agree , but >>at g/60, it looks right..Besides the uncertainity of Yace is not too
bad..Gromit3 is even worse..

Nothing at all. I just noticed that it had played less games than most of the >programs above. This and my belief that it's better than Bringer and Zchess >caused the comment.
It is strange that so few games have been played with Gromit 3, but the rating >probably isn't too far off.

Be careful..Some people will probably start defending Zchess..Bringer is also quite underestimated in my view.

That's your opinion..(couldn't resist) . But yes, based on what we know, and the fact that it's a slightly older/well known engine, we can be sure it's around that level..
Newer engines or versions should be tested more..

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 25 June 2000 20:44:31:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Aaron at 25 June 2000 20:22:42:

Be careful..Some people will probably start defending Zchess..Bringer is also quite underestimated in my view.
That's your opinion..(couldn't resist) . But yes, based on what we know, and the fact that it's a slightly older/well known engine, we can be sure it's around that level..
Newer engines or versions should be tested more..

Well, I have no problem with that. It's a matter of taste and sometimes experience with a certain program.
I used the word probably to signify uncertainty, so it wasn't an attempt to pass judgment.
New programs should in principle be tested just as much as old programs. But you're right, we have a good hunch about the strength of engines like Comet, AnMon, Phalanx, LG2000 and Crafty, so 4-500 games aren't necessary.
Best wishes...
Mogens

[Aaron]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Aaron at 25 June 2000 21:07:29:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 25 June 2000 20:44:31:

That's your opinion..(couldn't resist) . But yes, based on what we know, and >>the fact that it's a slightly older/well known engine, we can be sure it's >>around that level..
Newer engines or versions should be tested more..

I used the word probably to signify uncertainty, so it wasn't an attempt to >pass judgment.
New programs should in principle be tested just as much as old programs. But >you're right, we have a good hunch about the strength of engines like Comet, >AnMon, Phalanx, LG2000 and Crafty, so 4-500 games aren't necessary.

Sorry I don't mean to quibble..But you wrote
"Someone should play a few more games with Yace to get the rating inflated a little"
That sounds like passing judgement to me..and
"This and my belief that it's better than Bringer and Zchess caused the comment"

Not passing judgement?


Irony?

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 25 June 2000 22:52:50:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Aaron at 25 June 2000 21:07:29:

Sorry I don't mean to quibble..But you wrote
"Someone should play a few more games with Yace to get the rating inflated a little"
That sounds like passing judgement to me..and
"This and my belief that it's better than Bringer and Zchess caused the comment"

Not passing judgement?

New programs should in principle be tested just as much as old programs. But >you're right, we have a good hunch about the strength of engines like Comet, >AnMon, Phalanx, LG2000 and Crafty, so 4-500 games aren't necessary.

Irony?

No, that was a suggestion and wishful thinking on my part with a pinch of irony. Judgment is a categorical statement backed by evidence.
No, expressing my opinion. Just as a statement like "x is probably better than y" is. You forget words like "probably" and "maybe", I usually don't.
A little.
Best wishes...
Mogens

[Stefano Gemma]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Stefano Gemma at 26 June 2000 00:25:59:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Dann [not glowing] Corbit at 25 June 2000 06:49:26:

Raffaela : 997 0 0 3 0.0 % 1597 0.0 %

I would like some directives from you as to you to play the program.
Should I use 6 ply, 7 ply or something else for G/60?
Because you have a command line option, I am not adverse to using that.

If G/60 means 60 minutes per game, on a fast machine (PII 450) you can use ply 8 or 9. (/L9)

You might send me a table of recommendations.
I will run on machines from 300 MHz to 700 MHz.

Finally i've found some time to work on my program! On my web site www.linformatica.com you'll find the release 0.0.0.6 of Raffaela (but i have sended it to you by e-mail), with automatic time control. It seems to work on time setting as:
level 0 60 0
and maybe even with the increment value.
Now you should run your battle of the crown without problem with Raffaela.
Ciao!!!

[Dann [not glowing] Corbit]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Dann [not glowing] Corbit at 26 June 2000 02:46:20:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Stefano Gemma at 26 June 2000 00:25:59:

Raffaela : 997 0 0 3 0.0 % 1597 0.0 %

I would like some directives from you as to you to play the program.
Should I use 6 ply, 7 ply or something else for G/60?
Because you have a command line option, I am not adverse to using that.

If G/60 means 60 minutes per game, on a fast machine (PII 450) you can use ply 8 or 9. (/L9)

You might send me a table of recommendations.
I will run on machines from 300 MHz to 700 MHz.

Finally i've found some time to work on my program! On my web site www.linformatica.com you'll find the release 0.0.0.6 of Raffaela (but i have sended it to you by e-mail), with automatic time control. It seems to work on time setting as:
level 0 60 0
and maybe even with the increment value.
Now you should run your battle of the crown without problem with Raffaela.
Ciao!!!

That's really great news! That's one less thing that I have to worry about screwing up.



My FTP site

[Dann [not glowing] Corbit]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Dann [not glowing] Corbit at 26 June 2000 02:54:54:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 25 June 2000 22:52:50:

Sorry I don't mean to quibble..But you wrote
"Someone should play a few more games with Yace to get the rating inflated a little"
That sounds like passing judgement to me..and
"This and my belief that it's better than Bringer and Zchess caused the comment"

Not passing judgement?

New programs should in principle be tested just as much as old programs. But >you're right, we have a good hunch about the strength of engines like Comet, >AnMon, Phalanx, LG2000 and Crafty, so 4-500 games aren't necessary.

Irony?

No, that was a suggestion and wishful thinking on my part with a pinch of irony. Judgment is a categorical statement backed by evidence.
No, expressing my opinion. Just as a statement like "x is probably better than y" is. You forget words like "probably" and "maybe", I usually don't.
A little.

My [unscientific] thoughts:
I definitely gave Bringer a raw deal. My tests (about 1/3 or so of the Bringer games) were using version 1.5 -- not 1.6. I am probably going to expand the top bracket, and I will also run a bunch of extra games between the programs on the edges to try and get a fair starting position.
Yace has improved *DRAMATICALLY* in the last couple weeks. Most of the Yace games were played with older versions. It's not ready to wear the crown yet, but I think it is surely in the top ten.
I really thought that LambChop would have fared better. I am surprised by its position, since I have always enjoyed watching it play. I think increases in strength with many of the other programs may have passed it by, since it is a year old program at this point.


My FTP site

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 26 June 2000 08:31:29:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Dann [not glowing] Corbit at 26 June 2000 02:54:54:

My [unscientific] thoughts:
I definitely gave Bringer a raw deal. My tests (about 1/3 or so of the Bringer games) were using version 1.5 -- not 1.6. I am probably going to expand the top bracket, and I will also run a bunch of extra games between the programs on the edges to try and get a fair starting position.
Yace has improved *DRAMATICALLY* in the last couple weeks. Most of the Yace games were played with older versions. It's not ready to wear the crown yet, but I think it is surely in the top ten.

That sounds like a good idea. It's the points of division between the different groups that's important to get right. The actual ranking of the programs is hopefully determined by the competition itself.
Yes, that is also true IMO. I'm quite sure that the newest version of Yace is a top ten engine. Even at G/60.
Best wishes...
Mogens

[Aaron]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Aaron at 26 June 2000 14:09:25:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 25 June 2000 22:52:50:

Sorry I don't mean to quibble..But you wrote
"Someone should play a few more games with Yace to get the rating inflated a >>little"
That sounds like passing judgement to me..and
"This and my belief that it's better than Bringer and Zchess caused the >>comment"
Not passing judgement?

No, that was a suggestion and wishful thinking on my part with a pinch of >irony. Judgment is a categorical statement backed by evidence.
No, expressing my opinion. Just as a statement like "x is probably better than >y" is. You forget words like "probably" and "maybe", I usually don't.

Weird..I always thought that some people can make judgements without any evidence what so ever..
Not really..That was a exact quote by you actually..No "probably" or "maybe" used..
Also If you want to hide behind the shield of "opinion", feel free to do so..As you have noted often it works far more often than Entreprise shields..
But the next time you think someone is making a judgement, just take it that he is merely expressing his opinion...
Aaron

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 26 June 2000 14:36:30:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Aaron at 26 June 2000 14:09:25:

Weird..I always thought that some people can make judgements without any evidence what so ever..
Not really..That was a exact quote by you actually..No "probably" or "maybe" used..
Also If you want to hide behind the shield of "opinion", feel free to do so..As you have noted often it works far more often than Entreprise shields..
But the next time you think someone is making a judgement, just take it that he is merely expressing his opinion...

Well, that's possible, I wouldn't know.
No, but in this case I used the phrase "my belief", so no reason to feel down about that on this occasion either.
I'm not hiding behind anything. Hiding would be something like making categorical statements and when confronted with questions resort to IMO in abundance. To my knowledge I haven't done that. I suggest you look at your own statements instead.
Only when it's clear within the context of which the comment was made.
Best wishes...
Mogens

[Aaron]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Aaron at 26 June 2000 14:51:03:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: Battle of the Crowns -- calibration data [REALLY Almost there!] geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 26 June 2000 14:36:30:

Weird..I always thought that some people can make judgements without any >>evidence what so ever..
Not really..That was a exact quote by you actually..No "probably" or "maybe" >>used..
Also If you want to hide behind the shield of "opinion", feel free to do >>so..As you have noted often it works far more often than Entreprise shields..
But the next time you think someone is making a judgement, just take it that >>he is merely expressing his opinion...

Well, that's possible, I wouldn't know.
No, but in this case I used the phrase "my belief", so no reason to feel down >about that on this occasion either.
I'm not hiding behind anything. Hiding would be something like making >categorical statements and when confronted with questions resort to IMO in >abundance. To my knowledge I haven't done that.
Only when it's clear within the context of which the comment was made.

Of course.Not you..
As expected, you resort to the IMHo defence.. see below.
Interesting so you feel that using IMHO or "my belief is ..." from the start, is acceptable?
What if someone said from the outset that "IMHO Crafty is weaker than 1600?"
Does the "IMHO shield" work now? Sounds a little fishy to me..

This is getting a little tedious..You are as helpful as anyone..But like anyone else you don't like to lose a argument..
My point or opinion (shields up!) is this, you seem quick to cut anyone down to size, when they make statements about chess engines..And when they claim (whether it's debatable or not) to be merely stating their opinion, you use your famous "IMHO shield " argument..
But when you do it...You deny doing so..
You have being helpful to many, including myself but this discuss is getting really unproductive..
On the other hand, my frequent posts now may convince the "Gods" that I actually check this forum every 5 minutes!!
If you want to continue this email me at axioms@go.com