Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 09:49:24 05/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2003 at 12:05:22, Peter Berger wrote: >On May 02, 2003 at 11:47:46, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: > >>On May 02, 2003 at 09:01:29, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On May 02, 2003 at 08:36:30, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >>> >>>>Hello Tony, >>>> >>>>which book is Ruffian using? Sorry if I am pestering you with a question >>>>already asked, but I am really interested. Fritz 8 must be using its own Fritz >>>>8 book (by A. Kure), how about Ruffian? >>>> >>>>Thanks in advance. >>> >>>Ruffian is using its own book available at the website. And since it's installed >>>as an UCI engine there's no book learning. Essentials from answers to similar >>>questions like the one above :-). >>> >>>Regards, >>>Mogens >> >>Mogens, >> >>thanks for confirming my suspicion. Actually, as I can see, Mr. Hedlund did not >>care to reply to my carefully phrased question. Ruffian is being tested in an >>unfair manner. Partly due to Perola Valfridsson's benign attitude to the SSDF >>testing methods, which is his own fault, partly due to UCI engines' not sending >>the results back to the engine. UCI is hopeless there... >> >>I only wished to point out this fact that may open the eyes of the CCC members >>who were not aware of the technicalities of this match. Fritz 8 keeps on >>learning and finetuning its book, while Ruffian never gets back the previous >>results... The final score should not be taken very seriously, IMHO. >> >>Rgds, >> >>Djordje > >As far as I know SSDF usually contact the authors and ask them with which >settings they want their engines tested for maximum performance. > >If Ruffian doesnt have booklearning as an UCI engine that's a missing feature, >nothing more, nothing less. It might be difficult to implement but it's not >impossible, as others have it. That's similar to the time usage discussed >somewhere else. Ruffian (only as an UCI engine?) doesn't use its time in an >optimal way (an understatement) in 40/120. So is usage of this timecontrol >unfair? Btw, I expect this problem to be more severe than the book issue because >Ruffian's book is quite wide. > >I am convinced a future version of Ruffian will take revenge anyway :). > >Peter I agree with you that this missing feature is the author's fault. I said so explicitly in my message. Too bad that such a fine engine lacks it. I am sure that the next release will be updated learning wise. Your comments make sense to me. Rgds, Djordje
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.