Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 04:55:19 09/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2002 at 07:35:04, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Hi, after my feeling it's better to wait Uri. It's a little sensation and only the author must give this information. No other persons can do it. I can also not know that a for me "new" program have so strong results. And I know a lot of programs. So far I make analyses with Ruffian and other strong programs. I cann't see that this program have the same playing style at other strong programs. It's a combination from tactic and strategy, strong in endgame but maybe little problems with calmly positions (but here also not bad). Strong but not spekulativ (like Gandalf). The programmer of Ruffian must a little bit work on his opening book for get better results. This is my opinion. I am sure Ruffian is playing with ~ 2.600 ELO (Crafty with 2.500 for an example) or a little bit higher. So I believe one of the best 8 programs in the world. Really a sensation for this very fast searcher. I believe a super strong engine for long time analyses. 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.