Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 13:09:40 12/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2003 at 06:21:26, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >As I had been away from my computer for a while, I only read the long threads >regarding Ruffian 2.0 last night. I feel obliged to give some new information >regarding the thread and the advertisement in which Ruffian 2.0 is labelled as >the strongest Winboard engine available. > >First of all, this very laudable description of Ruffian 2.0 was not produced by >Per-Ola. Per-Ola actually wrote in his text that Ruffian is "a strong Winboard >and UCI engine", nothing more. Thus, I agree with many of you who thought that >the wording was too pompous (to say the least). > >However, there are a couple of mitigating circumstances. At the time the >wording was being assembled Rebel 12 had not yet appeared as a WB engine, and >The King (a.k.a. Chessmaster) was used as a WB engine in highly questionable >ways (without its proprietary endgame bases, without its proprietary book; but, >rather unbecomingly, like some hacked-up version of an otherwise magnificent >program (this is not laying it on thick, I really mean it). > >As for the third program that was also mentioned as a strong WB engine, Deep >Sjeng 1.5, I have my own testing evidence, which I will be bold enough to >present to you (I will not supply the games as I have pitted Ruffian and DS >purely for my investigative purposes; to find out if there are any >vulnerabilities in the Noomen book). My evidence comprises more than 1,000 >games played at G/5, G/10, G/15, G/30, G/45, played on a dual AMD MP system (MP >2000+, 1 GB RAM, Windows XP Pro, hash 128 MB each, 3-4-5 tablebases included). > >So far the score of this very long match has clearly favoured Ruffian 2.0 >(firmly standing between 61-62%, indicating a rating margin of about 80+ ELO >between the two). The same dual system hosted DS against a Barton 2800+ (single >cpu system) and Ruffian was winning again (this time only 300 games played at >G/10). The dual version of Deep Sjeng 1.5 was getting 46% against the single cpu >Ruffian 2.0. Thus, we might say that Ruffian was not only keeping DS at bay, it >was slowly and surely breaking down DS as the match went on. > >These are facts and I stand behind them. I do have all the pgns and I was the >one to have supervised the matches, or most of them, at the Faculty of >Electronics, University of Nis, Serbia. My friend and associate, Vladan >Vuckovic (Axon programmer) was involved in the testing too. > >Again, I am sorry that the ad came out the way it did, and I am also rather sad >at the fact that I was not around to try and reply to some well-founded >criticism directed at Frank Quisinsky. I think that Frank was well-intentioned >but also that he has to learn a lot about the ways of the world, especially the >world of business. > >One more thing: it would be very easy to fend off any suer who tried to complain >about Ruffian and its prospective results. Just on the basis of the phrase used >"... strongest Winboard engine AVAILABLE", which was true at the time Ruffian's >ad came out: no Rebel yet, DS clearly the less potent of the two, The King not >a properly distributed WB engine. Still, let me say it again: I believe that >many complaints made here make a lot of sense and I also believe that the text >in the ad must have been less conspicuous and less assertive. > >Best regards to all, > >Djordje Well written - good job!
This page took 0.01 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.