Author: Thao Tak-Sen
Date: 11:24:30 01/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2004 at 14:13:54, José Carlos wrote: >On January 22, 2004 at 14:08:42, Frank Quisinsky wrote: > >>On January 22, 2004 at 11:25:26, José Carlos wrote: >> >>>On January 22, 2004 at 10:33:22, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >>> >>>>On January 22, 2004 at 09:56:50, José Carlos wrote: >>>> >>>>Hi Jose, >>>> >>>>> It is very easy, just say the truth instead of lying. In your web page and in >>>>> the CD box put "Untested version of Ruffian. Maybe stronger or maybe not". >>>> >>>>You forget Ruffian Leiden, maybe my text is not clear enough or your search now >>>>for a new story :-) >>>> >>>>Please read my answers! >>>>We test Ruffian versions a long time before the tournament in Leiden started and >>>>... Ruffian won the tournament in Leiden! In this case you have not a very good >>>>point for a discuss :-) >>> >>> >>> Yes I do. You lie. I denounce it. That's a good enough point. >>> >>> >>>>> Then >>>>> not even one customer can complain. >>>>> But if you choose to put "strongest winboard program in the world", you'd >>>>> better test very well or get ready to millions of complaints. >>>> >>>>Oh, now the old discuss! >>>>I have no other results from WB Ruffian. >>>>You can read my comments to this topic in CCC. >>>>I will not write every time to the same topic. >>>> >>>>Please use the search option from this forum! >>> >>> >>> Oh really? Do you really said in the archives that Ruffian 2 was not well >>>tested? Mmm, when I search I only see nonsene like "70-100 elo stronger than >>>Ruffian 1.0.5" and things like that. Now you admit you didn't test it well, so >>>you were lying. Simply. >>> >>> José C. >> >>Hi Jose, >> >>you are good, you find now an other point :-) >>I am very interesting for your next point ... lets go! >> >>Yes, I am sure that the new Ruffian versions (I tested version 2.0.0 and beta >>versions of version 2.0.0) > > > You keep contradicting yourself. You say "Ruffian 2 is not enough tested" and >also "I tested Ruffian 2 and I'm sure it's stronger...". > > José C. > > >>are 70 ELO stronger as Ruffian 1.0.5 and 100 ELO >>stronger as Ruffian 1.0.0. I believe I am the once of the Ruffian beta testers >>in the test phase of this CD which have not so good Ruffian Leiden version >>results. At the moment I test a little bit the Leiden version ... >> >>Sorry, but I have no other results. >>Please read the first message in this thread for an example! >> >>You can find different messages on different webpages (Alex Schmidt, Patrick >>Buchmann and others which see ~ 70 ELO more too, or search in my forum for >>exactly results. >> >>I test Ruffian under Arena Chess GUI. >>I don't know what the others made ... >> >>Best >>Frank Jose, Ruffian 2 is the best engine to become commercial, version 2 is better than commercial first release version of fritz,hiarcs,shredder,tiger and junior Ruffian 2 is better than shredder 3,which is commercial this is the first commercial ruffian version,this version is having 2700+ in SSDF list does shredder had this? then its not the problem for the customers of Ruffian....... i do not understand what exactly is the problem for you?
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.