Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 15:08:52 12/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2002 at 10:36:08, Mike Hood wrote: >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? Hi! Of course we try to include Ruffian in the next list. I guess, if it compares to well with the best programs, people starts to questioning the results because it is a Swedish program! I have played a few houndred speed games with Ruffian and at least with the Shredder-book it is an excellent program, it has only one weakness (well covered with the big book of Shredder) the opening phase, where it plays like a program from the early eighties. Bertil
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.