Author: pavel
Date: 16:00:05 09/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2002 at 18:48:02, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 25, 2002 at 18:14:33, pavel wrote: > >>On September 25, 2002 at 14:10:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 25, 2002 at 13:27:10, Roy Eassa wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Is Ruffian really a completely new chess engine that is very, very strong? >>>>Christophe estimated the chances of this to be 0.01% in an earlier thread. >>>> >>>>(I'm catching up here after a couple weeks of PC problems, but recent Ruffian >>>>messages seem to be relatively positive.) >>> >>> >>>re-read what he wrote. He said that the chances of a total "unknown" writing >>>such a strong engine alone is very small. That doesn't preclude the program >>>being new. And if it _is_ new, that suggests that another possibility we >>>both hinted at might be the case... namely that the author is not as unknown >>>as we might think... >> >>Seculations from everyone... >> >>First it's a crafty clone, >> it's a Fritz clone, >> it's a "hex"-ed version of a strong comercial program, >> it has a virus, (...) >> it's based on a stolen code by a commercial programmer, >> it' a programmer written by the help of a comm. programmer, >> it's a program written by a commercial programmer who is using a fake >> name. >> >>Truth: It can't be possible coz we could'nt do it ourselves. >> >>It takes a man to face the truth... >> >>;) >>cheers, >>pavs > >I am not so impressed after finding that in the right time control it is losing >even against movei. 10000moves/10min is right time control? Who cares about such time control? > >I expect every genius who thinks about the time mangement to understand that in >x minutes/y moves you should not divide x/y and decide that it is the time per >move. > >I expect every genius also to fix the problem because it is not hard to change >the code to divide by c if y>c. That would include many other programs who also has problem with such debious time control. Maybe because they don't care about such dubious time control? > >Conclusions: >1)The programmer is probably not a genius Fact, noone said that he is a genius. Fact, he was able to do something, which most of other "geniuses" couldn't do. >2)Other programmers probably can do better than Ruffian in 4 years. Fact, other programmers probably could do better, but didn't. It's not improtant, what one "could" do, it's important what one "did" do. But this is not the argument, (unless you wanna change it). The argument is, how far would one go (most likely out of jealousy), to prove that, someone who has actually succeded, doesn't deserve the success. cheers, pavs
This page took 0.01 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.