Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:48:11 02/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2004 at 14:28:14, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >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? Did you not read the link I provided? "All Ruffian 2.0.0 games played at 60' ponder off AMD XP 2600+ Ruffian 2.0.0 used Leiden opening book." Same conditions as 1.0.1 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.