Author: J.Dufek
Date: 08:26:12 01/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
Nonsense, test this time control with any Chess Tiger..... On January 03, 2004 at 15:22:24, Uri Blass wrote: >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.