Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:15:04 10/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 02, 2002 at 18:04:57, Dann Corbit wrote: >On October 02, 2002 at 17:33:39, Mark Young wrote: > >>On October 02, 2002 at 15:39:34, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On October 02, 2002 at 10:00:45, Paul Doire wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>5 Quick 4 minute games (for what they are worth) >>> >>>Therein lies the rub. Similar results were had with GLC, but it turns out that >>>GLC (too) is being run over rough-shod, like everyone else. >>> >>>>P3 450Mhz, crafty 24mb ram, ruffian 32mb ram, 128MB system, Win 98 >>>>3,4 and some 5 man TB's, own books played under Winboard 4.2.6 >>>> >>>>Crafty_1714 vs Ruffian_101 +3-0=2 >>> >>>5 games have little meaning. >>> >>>>Does older Crafty have Ruffians number?, >>> >>>I doubt it. Unless you are running Crafty on a 4 CPU box. ;-) >>> >>>>Anyone else tried this yet? >>> >>>Here is a ten game match at G/60 between two titans: >>> >>> Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws >>> 1 Ruffian 1.0.1 : 2554 244 142 10 65.0 % 2446 50.0 % >>> 2 Crafty-19.0 : 2446 142 244 10 35.0 % 2554 50.0 % >>> >>>[games to follow] >>> >>>Ten games are also totally unconvincing. However, I think we can see from the >>>pure volume of games that have been trundled under Ruffian's hooves that Ruffian >>>is a force to be dealt with. >> >>What force. I must have been getting bogus copies of Ruffian. It is good, but I >>would not call it a force... The more I test Ruffian and at longer time >>controls the worse Ruffian scores. >> >>Here is my current test..still running. >> >>My Crafty has been out scoring Ruffian in almost all my tests. >> >>P4 2.8 Ghz 1 GB Ram. >> >>Tiger book used for all programs. >> >>Each program has its own copy of the tiger book. Book learning is carried over >>for each test. >> >>Blitz:15'+15" 0 >> >> 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>1 Hiarcs 7.32 ** 1 00 11 1 1 5.0/7 >>2 Deep Fritz 7 0 ** ½½ ½ ½1 1 4.0/7 >>3 Chess Tiger 14.0 11 ½½ ** 0 0 ½ 3.5/7 15.00 >>4 Junior 6.0 00 ½ 1 ** 1 ½½ 3.5/7 10.50 >>5 Crafty 18.15 0 ½0 1 0 ** 1½ 3.0/7 >>6 Ruffian 1.0.1 0 0 ½ ½½ 0½ ** 2.0/7 > >Your results seem to be very atypical from what others achieve. > >However, with only 7 Ruffian games, this particular result certainly can't be >called surprising. > >I suspect you may have the hash (and possibly the EGTB) set up wrong. Or >perhaps your tests are using Ruffian as a UCI engine instead of as a Winboard >engine, where [as UCI] the results do not seem to come out as well. > >Ruffian seems to be scoring as well or better than most professional engines in >all the tests that I have seen. It has a + score against ChessMaster 8000 and >Chess Tiger 14 on my hardware. The only engine I have seen give Ruffian a >negative score is Chess Tiger 15. But (of course) the results are preliminary. >Perhaps we will learn more over time. Maybe ruffian does not like the p4 2.8Mh. I do not know but the fact that ruffian does good results on your hardware does not contradict bad results on Mark young hardware. The first test to compare is number of nodes per second If you and Mark young can post the number of nodes per second of Ruffian and Crafty in anlysis mode in the opening position then we may know better if my conjecture is correct. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.