Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:46:07 01/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2004 at 21:34:47, Rick Rice wrote:
>Thanks! Ruffian 2.0 losing to Crafty!! Now, you got me truly confused. I think
>SSDF is most reliable. Shredder tops the SSDF list and is World Champion too! No
>contradiction there!
It could top the SSDF list and not be world champion, or it could be world
champion and not top the SSDF list, there would be no contradiction at all.
You really need to read about statistics if you want to understand computer
chess results (and results in any sports actually).
Christophe
>On January 03, 2004 at 21:29:13, Peter Skinner wrote:
>
>>On January 03, 2004 at 20:53:39, Rick Rice wrote:
>>
>>>Person A posts a message saying Ruffian 2.0 is very dissapointing, with the
>>>results to back it up. This is followed by a second post which basically says
>>>that Ruffian 2.0 rocks with some results to back it up. Are these programs
>>>really so time and hardware sensitive, so as to show varying results on
>>>different CPUs/time controls?
>>>
>>>Ideal solution would be for SSDF to have one massive board with one CPU and
>>>memory for each program (equal CPU and mem for all the progs on its list) and
>>>some way to automate the play of these programs against each other..... on
>>>different time controls such as regular, blitz etc. Just wishful thinking for
>>>the future, but it would eliminate the multiple and varying results.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Rick
>>
>>Different setups, different time controls can contribute to a tournament's
>>results.
>>
>>Ruffe(C) on FICS uses Ruffian 2.0 on a dual PII 300 (600Mhz), so I borrowed an
>>older machine for a test last night (PIII 550Mhz). I played two 120 60 games vs
>>Ruffe using Crafty 19.8, and Crafty easily won both games. See below:
>>
>>
>>[Event "FICS rated standard game"]
>>[Site "FICS, Fremont, California USA"]
>>[Date "2004.01.03"]
>>[Time "01:24:54"]
>>[Round "-"]
>>[White "LilKikr"]
>>[Black "ruffe"]
>>[WhiteElo "2372"]
>>[BlackElo "2361"]
>>[TimeControl "7200+60"]
>>[Mode "ICS"]
>>[Result "1-0"]
>>
>>1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 exd5 5. Ngf3 Nf6 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+
>>Nbxd7 8. O-O Be7 9. dxc5 Nxc5 10. Nd4 Qd7 11. N2f3 O-O 12. Ne5 Qc8 13. h3
>>Bd6 14. Nd3 Re8 15. Be3 Qd7 16. Re1 Re7 17. Qf3 Nxd3 18. cxd3 Rae8 19. Rac1
>>Bc7 20. Re2 Bb6 21. Rec2 Re5 22. b3 a6 23. a4 Kf8 24. Ra1 Qd6 25. Rcc1 Nd7 26.
>>a5 Bc5 27. b4 Bxd4 28. Bxd4 R5e6 29. Rab1 Ne5 30. Qf4 Qd8 31. b5 Qxa5 32. bxa6
>>bxa6 33. Rb7 Rf6 34. Qh4 Rh6 35. Qg3 Rhe6 36. Rcc7 Rg6 37. Qf4
>>Rf6 38. Qc1 g5 39. Qxg5 Qxc7 40. Rxc7 Nf3+ 41. gxf3 Rg6 42. Qg3 Re1+ 43. Kg2
>>Ke8 44. Rc5 Rxg3+ 45. fxg3 Rd1 46. Rxd5 Rxd3 47. Kf2 Rd2+ 48. Ke3 Rd1 49. Rh5
>>Rg1 50. g4 Re1+ 51. Kd3 Rd1+ 52. Ke4 Re1+ 53. Kd5 a5 54. Rxh7 Re6 55. g5
>>Rg6 56. Rh8+
>>{Black resigns} 1-0
>>
>>
>>[Event "FICS rated standard game"]
>>[Site "FICS, Fremont, California USA"]
>>[Date "2004.01.02"]
>>[Time "21:12:06"]
>>[Round "-"]
>>[White "ruffe"]
>>[Black "LilKikr"]
>>[WhiteElo "2369"]
>>[BlackElo "2358"]
>>[TimeControl "7200+60"]
>>[Mode "ICS"]
>>[Result "0-1"]
>>
>>1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Bd6 5. O-O Nge7 6. c3 O-O 7. d4 Ng6 8. Be3
>>exd4 9. cxd4 b5 10. Bc2 Bb7 11. Nc3 Re8 12. e5 Be7 13. Nd5 d6 14. Be4
>>dxe5 15. dxe5 Bf8 16. Bg5 Qb8 17. Bxg6 hxg6 18. Rc1 Qc8 19. Bh4 Rb8 20. Re1
>>Qg4 21. Re3 Nxe5 22. Nxe5 Qxh4 23. Nxc7 Red8 24. Nd7 Rbc8 25. Rd3 Be4 26. Rd4
>>Qg5 27. g3 Bf3 28. Qf1 Qf5 29. Qd3 Be4 30. Qd1 Qh3 31. Qf1 Qxd7 32. Rxd7
>>Rxd7 33. Nxb5 Rxc1 34. Qxc1 axb5 35. f4 Rd4 36. Qc3 Rc4 37. Qb3 Bc5+ 38. Kf1
>>Bf5 39. Qf3 Rc1+ 40. Ke2 Rc2+ 41. Kd1 Rxb2 42. Qc3 Rb1+ 43. Ke2 Bf8 44. Kf3
>>b4 45. Qe5 Rc1 46. h4 Rc3+ 47. Ke2 Rc2+ 48. Kd1 Rxa2 49. Qb8 Rg2 {White resigns}
>>0-1
>>
>>I will be playing more games at this time control vs Ruffe as I do not yet have
>>Ruffian 2.0 to do testing here. I do not believe the shorter blitz results that
>>most post here give an accurate rating of a program's strength.
>>
>>I have a large database of games that I have played vs almost every program out
>>there at longer time controls, and my results definately differ from some of the
>>results posted here. Hiarcs 9 for me does extremely well, as does Crafty 19.8.
>>Shredder 7.04 and Deep Fritz 8 don't do as well. By no means am I saying Crafty
>>is better than Shredder, it just does better on my machines.
>>
>>Once I get Ruffian I will be playing it against all the programs I have, just as
>>I have done with everything I own. In my testing the programs rank as follows:
>>
>>1. Hiarcs 9
>>2. Junior 8
>>3. Deep Junior 8
>>4. Rebel 12
>>5. Ruffian 1.0.5
>>6. Shredder 7.04
>>7. Deep Fritz 8
>>8. Fritz 8
>>9. Tiger 15.0
>>10. Deep Sjeng 1.5
>>
>>As you can see my results are going to vary, but I _only_ play games 120 0 and
>>longer.
>>
>>Peter.
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.