Author: Chessfun
Date: 10:35:19 02/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2004 at 10:05:38, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On February 26, 2004 at 09:38:04, robert flesher wrote: > >>Another 100 games almost finished and 2.10 is once again far ahead of 2.02. >>Some questions come to mind when.... >>Frank Quisinsky states he is 100% sure that 2.02 is stronger than 2.10! >>Why would the author not name the engine 2.10 beta or alpha? If weaker? >>What are the time controls 2.02 is considered stronger in? >>Frank states 2.10 is tactically weaker!, Can we see the test results that >>confirm this? >>Once again i seriously doubt the claims made by Frank Quisinsky > >Hello Robert, > >I had start the test with Ruffian 2.0.2 and Ruffian 2.1.0 last week on two >different systems. > >01. Pentium IV Mobile 2.67 GHz, 128Mb for hashtables, 4-pieces tablebases with >4Mb Cache, Arena 1.0.4 GUI, Windows XP SP1a, ponder = off, Shredder with >hyperthreading = on and the opening book by Andreas Runge. 40 moves in 20 >minutes. Ruffian with the Leiden book as UCI engine! > >02. Dual Xeon 2.8 GHz, 256Mb for hashtables, 5-pieces tablebases with 64Mb >Cache, Arena 1.0.4 GUI, Windows XP SP1a, ponder = on, Shredder without >hyperthreading and the opening book by Andreas Runge. 40 moves in 20 minutes. >Ruffian with Leiden Book as UCI engine. > >You can find the results / games / log files in Arena Event Forum: >http://f27.parsimony.net/forum67213/ > >It seems that Ruffian 2.0.2 played much stronger as version 2.1.0 and it seems >that with ponder on Dual Xeon the results are not to good. > >Its only a test vs. one engine (Shredder 8.0). >But I have 164 collect postions and I can see that in a lot of cases Ruffian >solved the positions in the half of the time. Booth engine solved the most of >the position (Ruffian 2.0.2 = 136, Ruffian 2.1.0 = 135). > >So the tactical playing level by Ruffian 2.0.2 is for my higher and this can be >the reason that the results of Ruffian 2.0.2 in Eng-Eng matches stronger compare >to version 2.1.0. > >I saw your results but I have not try Ruffian vs. Ruffian and not with soo fast >time controls. Possible that Ruffian 2.1.0 is stronger with faster time >controls. I have not the time to test all constellations but at the moment for >me is interesting to see that Ruffian with ponder = on have not so good results. >Possible that this is the reason for the bad SSDF results (so far I am not sure >about it, have only 40 games vs. Junior got from SSDF). James Walker played a lot of 5 minute games with both Ruffian 2.1 and 2.0.2. Maybe he can post his results. AFAIK they were very close with 2.0.2 being slightly better and were autoplayed. Sarah.
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.