Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 16:12:59 09/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2002 at 19:00:05, pavel wrote: >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 Well put Pavs, i was beginning to think the exact same thing after reading Uri's countless attemts to discredit this new engine and it's author. Uri i say just enjoy it, maybe it can inspire you to improve on Movei.... Regards Jonas
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.