Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:06:43 09/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2002 at 11:52:25, Victor Fernandez wrote: >On September 22, 2002 at 08:32:39, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 22, 2002 at 08:02:30, Victor Fernandez wrote: >> >>>On September 22, 2002 at 07:28:01, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On September 22, 2002 at 07:14:44, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 22, 2002 at 07:05:46, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 22, 2002 at 06:52:18, Victor Fernandez wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>You give no new information about Ruffian. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>Hi Uri, >>>>> >>>>>where is your problem with a work from an other programmer. >>>>>The Ruffian programmer say not ... please stop to write about "Movai". >>>>> >>>>>Bad message Uri, very bad message! >>>>> >>>>>Best >>>>>Frank >>>> >>>>I did not say not to write about Ruffian. >>>> >>>>My complain was that the title says more about ruffian and I get no more >>>>information from reading the content. >>>> >>>>The fact that it has good result is not new so the speculation that top >>>>programmers will work harder is not surprising(I am not sure about it because >>>>they may also give up chess). >>>> >>>>The claim that Ruffian is not bad in endgame is also speculation(I do not know >>>>what bad means but people can look at the games and decide)_ >>> >>> >>>Uri, it is not speculation, it is a simple syllogism. >>> >>>Shredder plays the endings very well >>>A program that it score versus Shredder it cannot be weak in endings >>>Ruffian it is not weak in endings >>> >>>Prove the opposite. >>> >>>Victor >> >>I did not say nothing about Ruffian so I do not need to prove the opposite but >>the result against shredder is not a proof because a program can win against >>another program because of playing better middlegame without knowledge about >>endgame. >> >>I also know that shredder missed a win against Junior in the last game of the >>last WCCC so I am not sure if Shredder play the endgame very well and it may be >>dependent on the definition of very well. >> >>A friend of me who bought shredder does not think that it is better than other >>top programs in the endgame. >> >>I remember that Shredder was not number 1 in a competition based on a position >>from rook endgame. >> >>Uri > >Some observations: > > >1) Shredder has won several World championships: Jakarta 1996, Padeborn 1999, >London 2000 > y Maastrich 2001, defeating to several top engines. > >2) In pure endings, Shredder win versus top engine's 80 of 100 games, it is a >strong engine > in endings > >4) In any rook's endgame Shredder it is more stronger than any other top engine. No There are rook endgames when Fritz or Tiger are better based on sune larson's posts. > >5) "A friend of me who bought shredder does not think that it is better than >other >top programs in the endgame", this is not speculation? > > >5) Maybe Movay play better than Shredder and Ruffian in endings? ;) > >Victor Maybe Movay because my Movei Certainly does not know about endgames and endgames is one of the weaknesses of it. Here is one of the games of Ruffian in the Am/com againmst nimzo. I believe that it lost the game because of poor endgame play. It is not the only case and Nemeth said that Tiger15 beated it because of better endgame play in another post. WBNimzo 2000b - Ruffian 0.76 AmCom_2 DUAL-P3-1266 (7.3), 20.09.2002 1.d2-d4 e7-e6 2.c2-c4 Ng8-f6 3.Ng1-f3 b7-b6 4.a2-a3 Bc8-b7 5.Nb1-c3 d7-d5 6.c4xd5 Nf6xd5 7.e2-e3 Nb8-d7 8.Bf1-d3 c7-c5 9.0-0 Nd5xc3 10.b2xc3 Bf8-d6 11.e3-e4 0-0 12.Bc1-g5 f7-f6 13.Bg5-d2 Qd8-e7 14.Qd1-b3 c5xd4 15.c3xd4 Rf8-e8 16.a3-a4 Ra8-b8 17.Rf1-e1 Kg8-h8 18.a4-a5 b6xa5 19.Qb3-d1 Bd6-b4 20.Bd2xb4 a5xb4 21.Ra1xa7 Re8-c8 22.Qd1-a4 Rb8-a8 23.Ra7xa8 Rc8xa8 24.Qa4-b5 Ra8-b8 25.Re1-c1 Qe7-d8 26.Qb5-h5 b4-b3 27.Rc1-b1 Bb7-c6 28.Nf3-d2 Bc6-a4 29.Qh5-h3 e6-e5 30.d4-d5 Qd8-a5 31.Nd2-c4 Qa5-c3 32.Qh3-e3 Kh8-g8 33.Rb1-c1 Qc3-d4 34.Qe3xd4 e5xd4 35.Nc4-b2 Ba4-b5 36.Bd3-b1 Rb8-a8 37.f2-f4 Ra8-a1 38.Kg1-f2 Kg8-f8 39.Rc1-e1 Kf8-e7 40.e4-e5 f6xe5 41.f4xe5 Ra1xb1 42.Re1xb1 Nd7xe5 43.Rb1-d1 Ne5-c4 44.Nb2xc4 Bb5xc4 45.Kf2-f3 Bc4xd5+ 46.Kf3-f4 Ke7-d6 47.Rd1xd4 Kd6-c5 48.Rd4-d2 Kc5-c4 49.Kf4-e3 Bd5-c6 50.Rd2-d4+ Kc4-c3 51.Rd4-d3+ Kc3-b4 52.Rd3-d6 Bc6xg2 53.Ke3-d2 g7-g6 54.Rd6-d4+ Kb4-a3 55.Kd2-c3 Bg2-c6 56.Rd4-b4 Bc6-a4 57.Rb4-b7 h7-h5 58.h2-h4 Ka3-a2 59.Rb7-b6 Ka2-b1 60.Rb6xg6 Kb1-a2 61.Rg6-a6 Ka2-a3 62.Ra6-a7 b3-b2 63.Ra7-b7 Ba4-c6 64.Rb7xb2 Bc6-e8 65.Rb2-b8 Be8-c6 66.Rb8-b6 Ka3-a4 67.Kc3-c4 Bc6-d5+ 68.Kc4xd5 Ka4-a5 69.Kd5-c5 Ka5-a4 70.Rb6-b5 Ka4-a3 71.Kc5-c4 Ka3-a4 72.Rb5-e5 Ka4-a3 73.Re5-e2 Ka3-a4 74.Re2-a2# White mates 1-0 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.