Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 11:28:14 02/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2004 at 13:28:03, Chessfun wrote: >On February 26, 2004 at 08:22:51, Frank Quisinsky wrote: > >>On February 26, 2004 at 08:02:20, Thomas Mayer wrote: >> >>Hi Thomas, >> >>>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 ?) >> >>No! >>Version 2.0.0 is clear stronger as the test version from 23.06.03 (not public >>Ruffian version). >> >>>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 ? >> >>My comments are build from the results which I saw and my own. >>I search the reason why users have different Ruffian results. >>The most of the "bad" results I know from user which used ChessBase GUIs. >>Within my first test was the Fisher time controls and the UCI Ruffian. >>In the beta test some things in UCI mode are fixed by Per-Ola. Information can >>be found in Arena Support Forum (longer beta test of Ruffian). >> >>>> 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 ! >> >>I have played in the beta test time with Ruffian 23.06.03, later with the Leiden >>version of Ruffian. Here I have played some games, but the most with 40 moves in >>10 minutes. I public different tournaments with Ruffian versions in the last >>summer on Arena webpages. I test Ruffian with private collected positions too. >> >>I have around 500 games with Ruffian 23.06. and around 400 games with Ruffian >>Leiden. The most are 40/10, played under Arena Chess GUI. >> >>>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. >> >>At this time my CCE tourney was running. >>I believe the biggest tournament which I ever see in WWW. >>18 months tournament time with games in 40 moves in 40 minutes. >>Look in the SSDF and the Gandalf results. In the time of Gandalf are Fritz 6 and >>Junior 6 available. The first versions of Fritz 7 are not so strong later are >>Fritz stronger. You can see the different from Gandalf to Fritz 6 and Junior 6. >>The same differences in my CCE tournament. The SSDF tested Gandalf on slower AMD >>systems and Gandalf need time too ... you can see it now on the faster Athlon >>1.2 GHz systems. >> >>You can see ... I give of every questions an answer. >>Maybe we can make an interview :-)) >> >>>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. >> >>Yes, I saw it! >>At the moment I try to find out the problem! >>With Shredder and many games I can say more and the results can be found in >>Arena Event Forum with log files and so on. >> >>>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. >> >>Not interesting what you know wrote! >>I am user of chess software and computer chess is not my World of buisiness >>after my "Erfahrungen" in the last years. >> >>The SSDF results are now reality, of course yes! >>But more interesting is to search why the Ruffian results are different. >>This is much more important for me. >> >>>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... >> >>Ruffian 2.0.0 is in fact around 75 ELO stronger as Ruffian 1.0.5 and within I >>believe 100 ELO stronger as Ruffian 1.0.1. Do you know the results by Patrick >>Buchmann, Alex Schmidt and much other persons in WWW. On the machine of Wilhelm >>Hudetz the newer Ruffian won in front of Shredder. You can find a lot of such >>results in WWW but bad results too. Now we have to test and to find out the >>reason for it. > > >I don't believe Ruffian 2.0.0 is anything near 100 points stronger than Ruffian >1.0.1. I don't honestly think anyone does, except maybe you. >http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?art_id=342103 > >Sarah. Hi Sarah, questions (very important for me so far). Do you test with or without ponder? Best Frank
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.