Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 04:17:15 09/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2002 at 07:08:56, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 22, 2002 at 06:49:30, Frank Quisinsky wrote: > >>On September 22, 2002 at 02:13:47, Peter Skinner wrote: >> >>>On September 21, 2002 at 14:58:11, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>>On September 21, 2002 at 10:59:04, Daniel Clausen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 21, 2002 at 10:30:10, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>[snip] >>>>> >>>>>>I have a sinking feeling here that I am _not_ going to be the one that is >>>>>>going to look foolish. >>>>> >>>>>Being sceptic about something because one doesn't have enough information and >>>>>later see the proof it _is_ a new engine doesn't make you look foolish. (that's >>>>>how science works by the way) Pretending to know something for sure (like that >>>>>someone's cheating) without evidence and later be proven wrong does. >>>>> >>>>>Bob won't look foolish, however the Ruffian story turns out. You on the other >>>>>hand might. >>>> >>>> >>>>You're right Dr. Hyatt won't look foolish regardless how it turns out. I'm also >>>>not so sure Peter will, he wrote what I believe many think and have implied. He >>>>though had more courage then many by stating it exactly. >>>> >>>>Sarah. >>> >>>Thanks Sarah, >>> >>>I believe that is true. I wrote what surely others are thinking. I do not beat >>>around the bush as they say. This is how I see it: >>> >>>A) We know _nothing_ about the author of this program. And I mean nothing. >>>B) It's results are _to good_ for it to be a _new_ program. >>>C) No previous results have ever been made public. Surely if the author was even >>>scoring 50% against any commercial product we would have heard about it sooner. >>>Currently it is scoring well above that. >>>D) Trying to get information is like pulling teeth. No one can readily get >>>information other than results. >>>E) The author has not come forward to explain anything. Anyone that gets accused >>>here of anything almost immediately comes forward to clear the air. This has not >>>happened. Personally I don't think it will. >>> >>>There is simply to much doubt for me to believe that this is a _new_ program. >>>Nor do I believe it is an original program. Possibly someone from this board can >>>answer a few questions for me: >>> >>>1) What is the book format? >>>2) How are the engine parameters set? Are they in an ini file? >>>3) When executing the file, what does it say in the DOS window? >>>4) What was the earliest date that Ruffian had any public results? >>> >>>I think those should be simple to answer. Hopefully someone can post answers. >> >>Easy answer, WAIT and look ... >> >>Best >>Frank > >This is not an answer to 1-4. > >I do not have ruffian so I cannot answer but people who >have Ruffian can do it(at least for 1-3). > >Uri Hi Uri, the programmer can do it, not a person which have the program. I am not the programmer of Ruffian and within I will not post more information befor we all have the offical information from the author of this program. I can added results (normaly) but not more. Best Frank
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.