Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:20:26 01/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2004 at 02:34:25, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On January 21, 2004 at 01:37:51, Jouni Uski wrote: > >>So what's the explanation for this result: >> >>http://www.f22.parsimony.net/forum41668/messages/27486.htm >> >>This was played on P4 2,6 without pondering and 12 moves common book. >> >>Other tournamets like WBEC have put Ruffian clearly lower. Hmm. Is it pondering, >>book, CPU type, level, chance, manipulation, cheating. Who can repeat this? >> >>Jouni > >Hi Jouni, > >oh, it's my tournament! > >I played after this tournament a match: >Ruffian 2.0.0 - Shredder 7.04 (174 games) with 40/10 and Ruffian losed with >82,5 : 91,5 = 47,41% >Shredder losed 2 games on time! >Ruffian losed 1 game on time! >The same conditions! > >I don't manipulation my tournaments! >If you have interest I can send the Arena log file from this tournament. > >Shredder have a very good opening book, Ruffian too but I played with book >random option by Arena. In my opinion Ruffian is not so strong with shorter time >controls and fisher time controls. I do not buy it. Ruffian2.0.0 does not play shorter time control or fischer time control in WBEC. Deep Sjeng1.5 is the winner of that tournament and not Ruffian2.0.0 47.5/68 for Deep Sjeng1.5 only 41.5/68 for Ruffian2.0.0 This result does not prove that Deep Sjeng1.5 is worse but at least it proves that the claim of a clear superiority of Ruffian2.0.0 were premature and if Ruffian2.0.0 is better than Deep Sjeng1.5 then it is only slightly better. The only question is if Ruffian Leiden is better than Ruffian2.0.0 and we neeed more information to know(previous results that I read suggested that Leiden is better). 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.