Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:43:22 02/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2004 at 08:02:20, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Frank, > >>>> 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. > >> why you gave such a comment? > >Improve your english. That was just a guess of mine... besides: there is nothing >wrong with showing some good results before releasing something new. If you can >read I clearly state that you made your statements BECAUSE you had results that >indicate it. > >On the other hand: You state in the mentioned posting that you believe that >Ruffian 2.0.0 is about 50-60 Elos stronger then the version 23.06.2003 (which is >the Leiden version, am I right ?) >After the results of 2.0.0 were not as good as expected you said that it is not >as strong an blitz. Later you said that it has problems with fisher time >controls. And a bit later you said that maybe the Leiden version (23.06.2003 ?) >is a bit stronger - because the v2.0.0 is - your words - in fact a beta version >and was not tested very much. So what is correct now ? > >> I add my personal results in my forum and Arena webpages. I have no other >> results. > >I think since the release of Ruffian 2.0.0 you should have now MANY more games - >you even comment on many of the results - always with the same story that your >own results show a difference... But for the conclusion in that posting - >Ruffian 2.0.0 50-60 Elo stronger then Ruffian 23.06.2003 -> how many games did >you have to claim that ? Just a question, not an insult of course ! > >You may remember the Gandalf-story... There you also said that it is one of the >best if not the best engine at all. Gandalf was strong those days and still is - >but there was a difference between dreams and reality. > >Besides that -> you might have read my complete posting: >a) I pointed out that I still believe that Ruffian 2.0.0 is stronger then >Ruffian 1.0.1 >b) I even defend you that it is possible that your results seem to indicate that >it is way better. > >Seems that you offend everybody who tries to defend you... not very kind... it >seems that you still must realize that you are a businessman in computer chess >now and must live with bad and good news. I believe that some of the older heros >here like Ed or Ossi can tell you much about hits bellow the belt in that >business. The SSDF-Result is of course not such a hit - it's simply reality. I >hope that we will not see anotherone now you forces the SSDF to take an engine >off the list. > >Greets, Thomas > >P.S.: And believe me, the result of Ruffian 2.0.0 will get better - so far only >~ 150 games are played and only 4 opponents. It might not jump 100 Elos ahead >but I have no doubts that it will end up higher then Ruffian 1.0.1... I do not see how can you be sure about it. The only way to be sure is to test it at 120/40 If you test at faster time control(even 20/40 that is not blitz) then it is possible that you do not catch some bugs that happen only at long time control Uri
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.