Author: Mike Hood
Date: 07:36:08 12/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
Rex, I wanted this to be a Ruffian thread, not a Chessmaster thread, but I have to answer what you've said. The non-testing of Chessmaster and Ruffian are two completely different matters. Chessmaster doesn't offer an an autoplay function, for whatever reason, so it would mean a lot of hard work for the SSDF guys to test it. The King engine runs under Winboard, but since this isn't the way Chessmaster was intended to be run, UbiSoft could justifiably shout "UNFAIR!" if it were tested in this manner. Ruffian, on the other hand, is a UCI-Engine intended to be run as UCI. Neither the fact that it's new nor that it's freeware are relevant. Other free programs are tested by the SSDF (such as Crafty and Comet). Other progams are tested by the SSDF that are newer than Ruffian (such as Chess Tiger 15). It comes down to the fact that with the large number of chess programs available, the SSDF has to decide how to allocate their limited resources. The SSDF would be fully justified in banning from their list all programs without autoplayers. This might annoy the fans of strong programs like Chessmaster, but it's up to the owners of Chessmaster (UbiSoft?) to provide an autoplayer. I'm certain they already have one in their offices, but they've decided not to sell it. Write to them and complain! As for Ruffian... it's the SSDF's call. Are there enough reasons to justify testing it as one of the many Winboard and UCI engines? I would like to see how it fares against the big commercial programs, because there have been posts in this forum claiming it is "better than Fritz 7". Although I suspect that these claims are exaggerated, it would be good to see Ruffian being tested. But as I said, it's up to the SSDF, so, to rephrase the title of this thread, "Why hasn't Ruffian been tested?" On December 06, 2002 at 07:16:57, Rex wrote: >I agree.. This is yet another example of why I question this SSDF. Chessmaster >9000 can run inside winboard (ok it doesnt have its own opening book but make >both engines use the nunn opening book!!) and Ruffian is not included. These >two issues should be questioned. I am beginning to wonder if buying chess >programs are worth my damn money anymore not knowing not ALL programs are being >tested. > > > > >On December 06, 2002 at 05:05:03, Mike Hood wrote: > >>Is there any particular reason why Ruffian (allegedly the strongest freeware UCI >>engine) hasn't yet been tested? Will it be included in the next SSDF list?
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.