Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:12:20 01/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2004 at 06:27:24, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On January 22, 2004 at 04:51:25, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 22, 2004 at 04:25:25, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >> >>>On January 22, 2004 at 02:41:13, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>> I know your opinion: pick the money and disappear for a while. >>>> >>>> José C. >>> >>>Jose, >>> >>>sorry, but I have a lot to do and you have to wait of it. >>>Maybe 20 years ... hope so! >>> >>>In the next year I have too many ideas to make a little bit. >>> >>>I know that you are now disappointed (unkown the reason, maybe you are jealous?) >> >>The reason is clear. >> >>People deserve to get correct information when they buy a new program and nobody >>told them that Ruffian2 is less tested than Ruffian Leiden so they made wrong >>assumption and tested only Ruffian2. >> >>Ruffian2 is not called something like Ruffian 23.06.2003 or beta ruffian or >>ruffian experimental version that suggest that it is not tested enough so people >>could not know that it was not tested enough. >> >>Situation with free versions is different because people do not pay for them. >>professional behaviour is first telling people correct information about what >>they get. >> >>I can be only sorry that instead of trying to learn for the future to give >>correct information you disagree with Jose. >> >>Uri > >Hi Uri, > >sorry, but I cann't saw only one point which is interesting to disucss. > >We have two Ruffian versions on the CD. > >Ruffian Leiden (the version won the tournament in Leiden). >Ruffian 2.0.0 >and the free Ruffian versions ... > >For me it's absolutly clear that every programmer try to make his program >stronger and after compiling you cann't know (in the most cases) ... is my new >version stronger or not. This is normaly, right or not? > >After that the programmer and beta tester have to test a new version. In my >opinion is this clear too. With other words ... we are speaking about absolutly >clear things! > >All is not a big secret! > >If you or others search a version which is stabil and strong we must test in a >small group a program vs. x other programs more as 6 months with different time >controls. And this is not possible! > >We test Ruffian now one year (different versions) and the result by Per-Ola is >Ruffian Leiden which won the Dutch-open 2003 in front of Rebel, Tiger, Sjeng, >King and others. This results are available on the commercial CD-Rom and the >programmer closed version 1.x with version 2.0.0! > >Version 2.0.0 with small changes are on the CD available too. >Ruffian go in production after Leiden and we can wait one year and test Ruffian >2.0.0 ... Ruffian will win the tournament in Leiden 2004 and we start a new test >of one year and as result Ruffian is available in 10 years! > >The way Per-Ola go is right. > >At the moment Per-Ola is working on an update for Ruffian 2.0.0 and maybe we >should test this update six months before we give this update free? The most >Ruffian customers are not very happy about it if we wait a half year :-)) You do not need to wait and the problem is only with a name that gives wrong impression. When I read a name like Ruffian2.0.0 then the impression is that it is clearly tested to be better than previous released versions. Uri
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.