Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 06:38:27 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. > >And since nobody would believe a new engine would suddenly be so strong, there >had to be a previous version. > >Tony > >> >>anthony As you were the one to extract some "deeper" meaning from a simple engine vs. engine test that I performed with the only version of Diep I had, I will indulge myself in extracting the presupposition found in your retort: just like some other people (very few of them, actually) you are saying in a roundabout way that Ruffian is a clone, right? Not very nice before the start of the CSVN tourney, to say the least. As for me, now I know where things stand: neither you or Vincent can accept the existence and creation of a good chess program such as Ruffian in this case. So you people had to put in a complaint to the CSVN to check and ensure that Ruffian was not a clone. What is worse though is that you still go on with the same insidious remarks. OTOH, for your information, the starting 1.Nh3 DOES exist in Diep's book that I got together with the program itself. I did not tinker with the book. All the pgns and the book and the testing conditions were properly described. No malevolence there. Thanks, anyway, for revealing the sources of mistrust and malevolence. Sorry for that, I think that we should all be content when a good and strong new program appears. My suggestion: why don't we just try to enjoy our hobby and bury our petty hatchets.
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.