Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:11:18 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 21:19:25, Mike Byrne wrote: >On October 13, 2003 at 22:55:06, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On October 13, 2003 at 20:45:40, Mike Byrne wrote: >> >>>On October 13, 2003 at 20:22:54, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On October 13, 2003 at 20:16:41, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>Believe it or NOT Ruffian 1.0.5 is much better than Fritz 8, Hiarcs 9,Shredder 7 >>>>>and Chess Tiger 15 and possibly Junior 8. I will post some games tomorrow, but >>>>>my opinion is that Ruffian 1.0.5 should have been a commercial program. >>>>> >>>>>Pichard >>>> >>>>Ruffian1.0.5 failed to win WBEC. >>>> >>>>Deep Sjeng won it so I do not believe that Ruffian1.0.5 is better than Fritz8 or >>>>Shredder7. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Uri, >>> >>>You are so anti-Ruffian , it's not even funny. Yes Deep Sjeng won - by ONE >>>point out of 84 games. The games are not even full length 40/120 20/60 etc,. >>> >>>1: DeepSjeng 1.5 56.5 / 84 >>>2: Ruffian 1.0.5 55.5 / 84 >>> >>>So to say "Deep Sjeng won it so I do not believe that Ruffian 1.0.5 is better >>>than Fritz8 or Shredder7" is Ruffian bashing. >> >>I think if anyone is having an unjustified reaction it's you. The statement in >>question is: >> >>"Ruffian 1.0.5 is much better than Fritz 8, Hiarcs 9,Shredder 7 >>and Chess Tiger 15 and possibly Junior 8." >> >>That is quite a bold statement. It is at best questionable whether Ruffian is >>even on par with the likes of Fritz and Shredder, and certainly it is not "much >>better". At the very top, no engine is "much better" than the rest. >> >>Sure, there are results showing Ruffian finishing ahead of these engines, and >>then there are others that don't show that. Why do you and Jorge choose to >>believe some and then choose not to accept the results from someone as >>experienced as Leo? I'd trust Leo's tournament results before a lot of other >>home tournaments. >> >>To call Uri anti-Ruffian for disagreeing with an unsubstantiated statement such >>as Jorge's, when there is evidence against that statement, is a little brash. > >Uri has consistently put down or attempted to diminish Ruffian an an engine. It >was not that one statement. > >"Ruffian1.0.5 failed to win WBEC. > >Deep Sjeng won it so I do not believe that Ruffian1.0.5 is better than Fritz8 or >Shredder7. > >Uri" > >Do you really think if Ruffian had won, Uri would say: > >"Ruffian won it so I do believe that Ruffian 1.0.5 is better than Fritz8 or >Shredder7." Of course not. Deep Sjeng is known to be weaker than Fritz8 or Shredder7. Let take more extreme example: Suppose that a program get in Leo's tournament get less points than Gerbil after 84 games. Do you agree that you can use that fact to say that you are sure that it is not better than Ruffian when you cannot use the fact that a program scored better than Gerbil to say that it is better than Ruffian? My opinion about Ruffian was only based on results that I read and I saw no results that suggest that it is better than Fritz or Shredder and the best results that I saw was something like 50% against shredder7.04 after something like 10 games at long time control. I saw no proof so far that there is a big difference between 1.0.1 and 1.0.5 and 1.0.1 did the best in Leo tournament so maybe the time management of 1.0.1 was better for 40/40 against weaker engines(possible reason is that not using all its time in the first 40 moves prevent the weaker opponents to ponder enough so they played weaker). 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.