Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 04:39:25 02/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2004 at 17:58:36, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Michael, > >> http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?art_id=333335 > >well, I believe that Frank came to that conclusion because of the results he >got... okay, might be a bit marketing also. Thomas, why you gave such a comment? I add my personal results in my forum and Arena webpages. I have no other results. This have not to do with marketing. I gave PGN, log files and so on. Ruffian is strong and don't need such a bad marketing. We have to search the reason! That is all! I try it with the new Ruffian versions ... See Arena Event Forum: Shredder vs. Ruffian (long time matches). Best Frank >The SSDF-Result anyway does not say that Ruffian 1.0.1 was/is stronger then >Ruffian 2.0.0 - look at the margin of error ! Anyway, it seems clear that under >the conditions they have tested it, Ruffian 2.0.0 is not as much stronger as >Frank thought. >On the other hand I do not know how they did test it. Which book was used and >the main question: did they use Ruffian as UCI or WB. In UCI-mode booklearning >is not working -> for matches like they are played at SSDF booklearning is very >important. (By the way, this makes the result of ChessMaster 9000 even more >interesting. Even with standard setting, without learning and its own book it >achieved a quite good result. Also Eds porting to a Windows-version was >definitely a success - he even gained some strength which is not usual, I am >thinking about Fritz 3 / 4) >Besides, this is no critic to SSDF - their list is still the best we have for >long time controls. > >Greets, Thomas
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.