Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:16:01 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 02:39:59, Tony Werten wrote: >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? > >Nobody heard of Ruffian 0.76 before 1.0.1 started to get attention. Not right I heard about it in the winboard forum when I followed leo tournament. It won the second edition of the WBEC tournament. 1.0.1 won the 3th edition with more impressive score. 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.