Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:35:04 09/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2002 at 07:17:15, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >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. If the programmers asked not to post more than games and results then you are right. In other cases I think that people who have the program can post that information. 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.