Author: Chessfun
Date: 07:16:24 01/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2004 at 08:21:23, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On January 22, 2004 at 07:12:20, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > >Hi, > >again ... > >If I read Shredder 8 or Rebel 12, Ruffian 2.0.0 is available ... >I am sure the engines are new. > >The definition from "Clearly tested" is for computer chess programs not possible >or all programmers are working in version number 0.0xxx! > >I don't understand the problem Uri, included all the messages in this thread to >this topic. > >If you need a clearly tested Ruffian 2.0.0 version you have to wait 6 months. >Than you know the points which are to improved! > >Give me a chance to understand your point of view: >What have the Ruffian team to do if a new version is available >(example: Ruffian 2.1.0)? > >01. Test the version 1 week! >02. Test the version 2 weeks! >03. Test the version 1 month! >04. Test the version 2 months! >05. Test the version 6 months! >06. Never give the version as update because never is a version "clear tested". Seems to me you simply need more beta testers, enough to produce say 500 long games in say 2 weeks. My guess minimum 6 testers testing 24 hours a day. Sarah. >Clear is: >Test the version from different people because no programmer have 10 computers >at home. > >What do you think what we made with Ruffian? > >We test beta versions of Ruffian a long time (see for only one example the >tournaments on Arena webpages). > >The result by Per-Ola is Ruffian Leiden! >The winner of the Dutch-ch 2003! > >After Leiden Per-Ola try difference things to make his programs stronger without >a long test time. No we have two Ruffian versions on the commercial CD: > >Ruffian Leiden >Ruffian 2.0.0 (the start of a new versions number = a new try to make Ruffian >stronger) > >Now Per-Ola work on Ruffian 2.1.0 and got in the last days / weeks difference >message for improved his version 2.0.0! > >All is absolutly normaly for me, sorry! >Again, what is the point where we discuss here? > >Best >Frank
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.