Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:22:24 01/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2004 at 14:59:00, David Dahlem wrote: >On January 03, 2004 at 14:33:19, William Rex wrote: > >>This tournament was run at 1 min + 3 seconds. The position used was Nunn2. >>Some engines showed good play, but Ruffian 2.0.0 was dissapointing. It came in >>last by far, not even close to the top commercial engines from chessbase. Is >>this because ruffian is not so good at blitz? I'm not sure anyone have input on >>this? These were the engines that were included.. >> >>Ruffian 2.0.0 >>Shredder 7.04 >>Junior 8 >>Hiarcs 9 >>Fritz 8.0.0.23 >> >>Games were played at 1 min + 3 seconds - nunn2 position >> >>Here are the results >> >> 1 2 3 4 5 >>1 Fritz 8 | *** 11.5-8.5 10.5-9.5 11.0-9.0 12.5-7.5 >>2 Hiarcs 9 |8.5-11.5 *** 11.0-9.0 10.5-9.5 15.5-4.5 >>3 Junior 8 |9.5-10.5 9.0-11.0 *** 12.0-8.0 10.5-9.5 >>4 Shredder 7.04|9.0-11.0 9.5-10.5 8.0-12.0 *** 13.5-6.5 >>5 Ruffian 2.0.0|7.5-12.5 4.5-15.5 9.5-10.5 6.5-13.5 *** >> >>1 Fritz 8 - 45.5 / 80 - 56.8% (1743.75) >>2 Hiarcs 9 - 45.5 / 80 - 56.8% (1691.75) >>3 Junior 8 - 41.0 / 80 - 51.2% >>4 Shredder 7.04 - 40.0 / 80 - 50.0% >>5 Ruffian 2.0.0 - 28.0 / 80 - 35.0% > >I think the problem is the unreasonable time control. Try a more reasonable time >control. > >Regards >Dave The time control is not unreasonable. The poster asked if the problem is that ruffian is not good in blitz. It is playing in WBEC that is not blitz and it is not leading so I do not know if it is the problem. It may be interesting to know if people can report about time control when Ruffian is not last place in the same experiment 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.