Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 07:17:53 06/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2003 at 09:41:51, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 06, 2003 at 08:58:17, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>On June 06, 2003 at 07:54:07, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On June 06, 2003 at 07:06:41, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>> >>>>On June 06, 2003 at 06:15:36, Ryan B. wrote: >>>> >>>>>Making a strong opening book may not be so high on his to-do list at this time. >>>>>I don?t see how where he is from has anything to do with his opening book. The >>>>>best of the free programs not named rebel 12 I have seen just generate an >>>>>opening book from pgn files such as gm2600.pgn This way of making an opening >>>>>book requires no actual chess skill and defiantly in no way discriminates based >>>>>on ones home land. >>>> >>>>And such books are definitely weak. The Ruffian book is relatively weak for >>>>example. >>> >>>Ruffian book seems to be very good based on Ruffian results in Leo tournament. >>> >>>Ruffian got 79% against programs that include 2 proffesional programs(Gandalf >>>and Nimzo) >>> >>>Ruffian scored 3.5-.5 against Gandalf in that tournament. >>> >>>It may be interesting if some program can take the first place from Ruffian. >>> >>>I am sure that Deep sjeng is going to try but I even doubt if it can get 79% >>>against weaker programs in the 1st division. >>> >>>It has now 19.5/24 that is more than 79% but it still did not play against the >>>best programs of the first division(Aristarch and delfi). >>> >>>If you claim that Ruffian's book is bad for Ruffian then you need to prove that >>>Ruffian can get better results when it plays in conditions that are similiar to >>>the nunn match against opponents. >> >>I found enough proves for it when I saw the games played by SSDF. >>I will give you some examples from the Ruffian-Fritz 8 match. >>You can be sure, I could find many more examples. I just dont have the time to >>search for them. > >I know that Ruffian did not use book learning in the ssdf games so I think that >using these games may lead to wrong conclusions. Book learning will not prevent the first loss in a particular variation. > >I also see that most of the moves that you say that they are mistakes are not >bad moves in Ruffian's book but simply cases when Ruffian is out of book and >played a bad move and maybe it is better to blame the engine in these cases. > >Maybe Ruffian for some reasons performs better under winboard and I think >that it will be a good idea if someone checks if the same moves in the games can >be reproducable under winboard. > >We need to check that no one of the following problems do not happen: > >1)There are book moves that Ruffian knows not to play under winboard but does >not know not to play in the ssdf conditions. > >2)Ruffian needs more time to find the right move in ssdf condition and >practically could not do it in the game when under winboard it could find better >move and avoid weak moves that you describe. Do we know exactly how SSDF has tested Ruffian? I have set up Ruffians as UCI engine and with the winboard adapter in Chessbase and ran a testsuite with both some time ago. The result was that in about 50% of the Testpositions Winboard Ruffian found the solution faster and in 50% UCI Ruffian. The difference between the solution times for a position however was almost always < 3s. > >3)The moves that you describe as weak are not weak(at least for computers in >comp-comp games) and Ruffian lost because of later mistake(It is possible in >order to check it to check if Fritz8 can beat other programs after the moves >that you describe as weak) The moves are weak. Especially for comp-comp games. That does not mean that they are losing by force with best play. However programs dont play perfect. They are sometimes weak in defending a worse position. Michael > > >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.