Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 05:10:55 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. >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 ! These were only first results of course. It seems they won't continue testing of Ruffian 2.0.0. IMO they consequently should delete Ruffian 2.0.0 from the list. It is sufficient to inform the people who are interested in Computer Chess per CCC about it. Anyway, it seems clear that under >the conditions they have tested it, Ruffian 2.0.0 is not as much stronger as >Frank thought. As a "biased" person you simply should test against commercial engines "out of the box", especially if you plan to publish the results. Commercial engines should be tested with their own GUI. That way you don't get false or misleading impressions. It is not necessary to use two identical computers at all. Michael >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.