Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 17:38:49 09/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2002 at 11:05:47, Peter Skinner wrote: >People just take a step back and think. If _you_ were to write a chess program, >improved it's play to where _your_ program was beating the best this sport has >to offer, would you not "tell it on the mountain"? I sure as hell would, and I >know others would as well. I am beginning to see a pattern develop. Someone does something differently than you, and you can't possibly conceive of how it's possible. Maybe you would go and tell it on the mountain, but not everyone is like you. You sound an awfully lot like Vincent calling Bob a fraud just because he couldn't reproduce Bob's results. I do recall hearing in the past, in response to inquiries about when Ruffian would be made public, that the author didn't think it was strong enough yet. It was on par with the commercial programs, or at least the very best amateur engines, and the author thought it wasn't good enough. Imagine that, high standards. It sounds like the author might have very high standards, or is just very meticulous. Maybe his high standards aren't reasonable in practical situations, since chess is probably a draw when played perfectly by both sides, but that doesn't change the fact that he could have those very high standards. It actually does make some sense. What if you created a piece of crap (in any field, not just computer chess)?. You wouldn't want to show other people. Perhaps some person's idea of what isn't good enough is different from other people's ideas. Getting a plus score against a commercial engine would be more than acceptable for most of us, but maybe other people have different standards. That would certainly begin to explain why Ruffian is so strong and why your chess engine plays at 1700 ELO. You were thrilled with a draw against GNU Chess. Maybe the author of Ruffian wasn't satisfied with anything but wins, regardless of the competition. We might look at that and think it's unreasonable to set your standards THAT high, but while it may seem unreasonable, it doesn't mean someone doesn't hold that high of standards. >That is something, as Robert said, someone would have >known about. NO ONE seems to know anything but how to say wait for a statement, >biography of the author, or even a release of the engine. That to me smells like >a rat. If it smells like it... By that same logic, you have several other identities here. So would you like for us to use that same logic and deem you a fraud? Or would you rather us give you the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps you, of all people, should be the first to jump at the opportunity to give the benefit of the doubt to others. >The only way that you are going to get the program is if you download the next >release of Arena. I find that odd. I heard that it would be available as a seperate download, but that it would also come with Arena (along with other strong engines, such as SoS, and some others). If that's true, so much for your theory, since that seems to be the only evidence (and I use the term loosely) supporting your accusation. Russell
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.