Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 18:07:17 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
>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). > I am still wondered how you run this Match and Vincent didnt tell me anything about you, running a Match with this old Diep Version from 2001. How this book created by *** me *** in 2 hours during 2001 can be considered serious? You paid for a Legal Diep version in 2001? How dont I know that you were a Diep Beta Tester during 2001? >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. > Again, how can you think that you conclusions are definitive in short time control match with an eccentric book? I could only conclude that Diep is a bad blitzer. Is there another realistic conclusion?
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.