Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:36:41 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 10:24:01, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >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 Ruffian0.7.6 was never released as a free engine. It is a previous version relative to 1.0.1 and 1.0.1 won WBEC more convincoingly than 0.7.6 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.