Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 11:08:51 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
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 ;)
TMUEAGAB (The Most Used Excuse After Getting A Beating, tm)
I do not know if the setup of this match is correct and if Diep is really so
weak, but I know that asking for longer time controls is just a way to spread
fog.
If a chess program really needs longer time controls to start playing decently,
then there is something inherently wrong in its design.
In other words, it sucks.
I'm not saying that Diep sucks. Maybe the match setup was not fair for it.
I'm saying that if a program gets such a beating at blitz it does not smell good
anyway for a longer time controls match.
That's incredible. I hear the same excuse ("it will perform better at longer
time controls") since the days of the 386. Now that our computers are several
hundred times faster, the same excuse is still used. It does not make any sense.
Christophe
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.