Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:49:25 09/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2002 at 20:04:13, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Daniel, > >> Having said that, I'm also sceptic so far. But as far as I can tell, the only >> thing which really speaks against Ruffian being original work is the fact >> that.. well.. it doesn't happen every day that a very strong engine appears >> and most of CCC-readers didn't hear of it before. That surely says something, >> but it's very well possible that Ruffian _is_ the exception here. > >well, that's nothing against you, but to be honest: I absolutely do not >understand the discussion about Ruffian the last view days... Instead to be >happy that there is something new and something strong, it seems that most of us >here are searching for a way to claim or proof that it is a clone... > >After having played some games with the engine I am absolutely sure that it is >no clone. Also it does not play from outer space, but Ruffian is really really >strong. In two little privat tests against Fritz 7 (6,5 - 3,5 in favor of Fritz) >and Hiarcs 7.32 (7 - 3 in favor of Ruffian) it shows that it can bite. > >Besides: "most of CCC-readers didn't hear of it before" - well, might be a good >idea for all of you to look a little bit more around where the heart of amateur >computer chess beats, like FICS and ICC... I don't know when it was that I see >Ruffian the first time there, but it is not as new as some think... And it is >not only myself who has seen that this program IS strong... (e.g. I remember >that the programmer of Tao remarked some weeks ago that it is very strong) > >And: why do you guys think that it is only for the pro's possible to write such >strong engines - who knows, maybe Per-Ola has found something new... A couple of >years ago nullmove was something new and it was a big step forward for computer >chess... I am absolutely sure that there are still many things to discover in >computer chess, maybe not as revolutionary then null move but they are there... For me the problem is not having ideas but implementing knowledge of other(I believe that if I understand how to implement knowledge of other people it will also be more easy for me to implement my ideas). The next thing to do for me is implementing more winboard commands and implementing hash tables in a better way. I wonder how did you learn the knowledge of other people about these things. Did you read source code of other programs? I even have problems in implementing non chess ideas that are only about reading the winboard commands when I analyze. I wonder how other learned all these. The proble with learning source code is that there are so many files that are dependent on other files that I do not know where to begin. Inspite of that problem I understood tscp but it was not easy for me. I started a discussion about listening to winboard commands when the program analyze(things that are done in analysis or pondering and I have problems there) see http://www.f11.parsimony.net/forum16635/messages/35202.htm for the first post 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.