Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 11:55:36 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 14:36:58, Djordje Vidanovic wrote:
>On October 13, 2003 at 14:26:23, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>
>>On October 13, 2003 at 14:08:51, Christophe Theron 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 ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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
>>
>>I think it is definitely possible to tune a program for longer time controls:
>>fewer extensions and a larger eval. OTOH, I don't think we're talking hundreds
>>of elo points. Maybe 50. (relative performace at short and long time controls)
>>
>>anthony
>
>
>
>I even went so far so as to concede 100 points, if you remember. The blitz
>margin was 300+ and I agreed to a possible 200 point margin at longer controls.
>Generous, huh.
>
>Djordje
It is becoming increasingly obvious that your intent in this thread is to start
a massive flamewar in some sort of attempt to discredit Diep. No one is
claiming that Diep is the best thing since sliced bread. I think Ruffian is
stronger than Diep (without question it is stronger than Diep of two years ago,
which you seem to have used). However, I find it hard to take seriously a match
in which one engine plays 1. Nh3 in all its games with White.
anthony
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.