Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Ruffian 0.76 is still playing incredible strong!

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 15:06:32 09/19/02

Go up one level in this thread

On September 19, 2002 at 17:49:15, pavel wrote:

>On September 19, 2002 at 17:37:32, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>On September 19, 2002 at 14:46:59, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>>>On September 19, 2002 at 14:20:12, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>On September 19, 2002 at 11:47:01, Sune Fischer wrote:
>>>>>On September 19, 2002 at 11:24:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>The only thing that concerns me is that anytime a brand new and unheard-of
>>>>>>engine pops up, it is cause for concern _and_ suspicion.  It might be perfectly
>>>>>>legitimate, who knows.  But remember "voyager", "le petite", "bionic impact",
>>>>>>"gunda" and others?
>>>>>>Jumping way up to near the front of the pack is not easy.  Doing it without
>>>>>>ever having been to a public event is even more unlikely.
>>>>>>It would be interesting to examine the executable if anyone has a copy, to
>>>>>>avoid the suspicions before they start to grow...
>>>>>That suspicion is natural, but if this engine really is that strong, then he
>>>>>must have improved a lot on Crafty or whatever code he used.
>>>>>There has been many Crafty clones, but no one actually stronger than Crafty
>>>>>AFAIK, so Ruffian is really not your average clone in that case.
>>>>It depends.  IE on any given day, crafty can beat anybody, or be beaten by
>>>>anybody.  Look at the results for "Le Petite".  It looked very strong.  Yet
>>>>it was an absolute copy...
>>>>>But apart from that, have you ever really gone over all the open source programs
>>>>>out there, and what about the CCC archives? There is plenty of information
>>>>>available to build a mighty strong engine. I don't think it could be done in 6
>>>>>months, but who knows how much time he spent on it, hopefully it was a good
>>>>>decade ;)
>>>>That's the point.  I can't imagine someone working on an engine, in a vacuum,
>>>>for a decade, before anyone finds out about it.  I can't imagine anyone writing
>>>>a program in 6 months that would come close to beating _any_ top program.
>>>>Anything is possible, I will agree.  But the probability is so low that it
>>>>will make people wonder...
>>>I hope you realize that you have essentially *publicly* leveled an accusation
>>>without presenting any evidence. I would prefer in such cases that either an
>>>investigation be conducted discretely or a wait and see policy be followed.
>>I haven't leveled _any_ accusation whatsoever.  I asked a direct question,
>>pointing out what has happened in the past.  I have _not_ said that this
>>program is a "clone" or anything else, and you can feel free to find some-
>>thing I wrote that does make that claim...
>>As I said previously, I find it _hard_ to believe that a newcomer would be
>>that strong.  _not_ impossible, just _unlikely_.  I stand by that...  If some-
>>one takes that the wrong way, fine by me...
>No offense.
>But you had the same impression when YACE came out.

Yace first release was clearly wekaer than yace of today.

>It is a fact that Yace came out of blue and became as strong as Crafty in a very
>short time.
>Same can be said about Aristarch, which also improved in a very short time.

Aristarch first release was clearly weaker than aristarch of today.

Aristarch also played before it was released in one of the CCT tournaments if I
remember correctly.


This page took 0.46 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.