Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:28:30 10/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2002 at 01:53:11, Mike S. wrote: >On October 25, 2002 at 09:16:57, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>(...) Nevertheless, after thinking twice, I agree that this result looks a bit >>peculiar. > >Maybe many games were lost on time? The configuration with Auto232 on 1 single >computer is unusual. > >In my test, Genius 98 (~5/6/6.5 AFAIK) achieved a result of [305], very similar >to i.e. Aristarch 4, CSTal 2.03 or even Yace 0.99.56 in these tactical >positions. And the other abilities of Genius are certainly not worse than it's >tactics. > >Ruffian 1.0.1 is [373], between Nimzo 8 and Hiarcs 7.32 in that test. > >http://meineseite.i-one.at/PermanentBrain/quick/quickxls.zip > >But OTOH, maybe the positional part of the WM-Test(100) indicates that the >extreme result isn't to unlikely: In the positional part of that test with 36 >pos., Ruffian solved 22 - and Genius 6.5 solved only 7!! I do not think that we can use the WM-test suite to decide about playing strength of the engines. I also do not believe that there is a known good positional test for chess programs. Ruffian is not known to be a positional monster(the author of it says that the secret of Ruffian is better pruning and extensions) If ruffian can score significantly better than genius in a positional test then soemthing is wrong in the test. 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.