Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 18:18:20 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
>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. > You must understand one thing: This problem about Ruffian is not my matter here. That is a problem that the person involved must solve. Another thing is the result that you have posted here, using an eccentric book (for no saying crappy book made in 2 hours) without my authorization. THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER. And you begin to draw circunstancial conclusions from a Match that doesnt have any pratical value. I would recomend you to check the Leo D Tournament Pages or the SSDF List so you can verify by yourself the time used in this Tournament and List. My question continues: why to use an old Diep Version, perhaps the last Wb Diep version of 2001 when you have a lot of new Engines? Why are you trying to prove with a mere Match whose time contro is 5 minutes? How did you get the Diep Version 2.XX? It is still a mystery for me. How hasnt Vicent tell me about this Match and how did you get this Version of 2001 when the last available Diep Version was 1.5X in 1996? >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. I am not revealing any source of mistrust and malevolence. My matter is concerning aboout these results that you claim as the result of the year. Please, why did you choose this old Diep instead of another newer Engine or better, why didnt you request Vincent a better book or a newer Diep Version? More, I can tell you that this Diep 2.xx of 2001 was a weak Beta Version and it is a mystery how you got it? Could you answer this question?
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.