Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 07:24:01 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 10:14:58, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >On October 13, 2003 at 08:31:04, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On October 13, 2003 at 08:16:20, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>while preparing the opening book for Ruffian I decided to use a very good >>>positional program for Ruffe's sparring partner. I decided on Diep due to its >>>impressive positional play. Diep also has an interesting and unorthodox opening >>>book with lots of lines that are worth analysing. No small wonder, the book's >>>creator is a super strong Fide Master, the author of Diep: Vincent Diepeveen. >>> >>>Be it as it may, I matched Ruffian with only a skeleton of the book to be >>>(meagre 1538 positions for starters) and pitted the positional monster against >>>the fast searcher. The result was a little disappointing and I must say that I >>>did not learn much from the match. Of course, bear in mind that these were only >>>G/5 games, but still... >>> >>>Diep had its own rather well researched book, with many home cooked tricks and >>>traps, while Ruffian was equipped with a wee book that is to grow yet. Diep had >>>the advantage of a Barton 2800+ while Ruffian played on my old NetVista PIII-933 >>>computer. >>> >>>End result: Ruffian 86%, Diep 14%, or 48-8!! My question is: could the >>>reigning leader of the SSDF beat Diep more convincingly than Ruffian? >> >>Two things come to mind: >> >>1. I didn't look at all the games, but it looks like Diep opened every game 1. >>Nh3?? >> >>2. Diep is more designed for longer time controls. I remember Vincent >>complaining last CCT about how 60 10 was too short ;) >> >>anthony > > >As to the two things that come to your mind, and a bit more: > >1. Have no idea why. That was the stock book that came with Diep, ver. 2.*... >Not my mistake. But, yes, I definitely thought that the book was weird; in the >end the only answer I had was that Diep wanted to lure other engines into >playing real chess and not some booked up semblance of bean-crunching chess (a >rough resume of Vincent's stance). > >2. OK, point well taken. Still, as the current blitz performance indicates a >300+ ELO margin, let's assume that the margin in longer games might well be 200 >points or so. Do you think that my estimate is just about right? > >3. Please take into account that the Barton is about 2.5 times faster than the >PIII. > >4. Just a side note. Without wishing to be overly provocative I did not post >the games played between the early Ruffian 0.76 (the premordial version so >speak...) and Diep 2.*, played on the same machines, with the same speed >advantage for Diep. I simply quit the match after 24-1 (!) in favour of >Ruffian... Oh, last but not least, I let Ruffian play with a book of only 96 >positions... > >5. Apparently it all boils down to the issue of the inherent strength of an >engine. > > >Djordje <shrug> you might be right, I'm just pointing out some odd things. I've never heard of this Ruffian 0.76 - I thought Ruffian was first released with 1.0.1? anthony
This page took 0.02 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.