Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 10:38:11 02/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2004 at 11:12:05, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On February 27, 2004 at 10:16:55, Ricardo Rego wrote: > >>Hi >> >>Several messages in the last few days are handling the analysis / evaluation >>issues. I believe I am one of the Ruffian's customers that still have doubts >>about the 'power' of its game. >> >>Considering the following positions and the following evals, I got an conclusion >>that Ruffian is not a good evaluator. Checkout (and compare) the scores provides >>by Ruffian against other engines... Ruffians thinks different. Simple and Plain. >> >>Ok, the positions have a particular and similar pattern, but I found out the >>same thing with other setups... >> >>R2 >> >> >[D]1rb1n1k1/5r1p/p2p1pp1/3P4/q1P1PQ2/3RN3/P5PP/KN4R1 w - - 0 31 >> >> >>Analysis: 120 seconds >>PIII 700 Mhz - 32Mb Hash Tables >> >>Engine Best Move Relative White Score >>---------------------------------------------------- >>CM9000 Nd2 0,94 >>Shredder 5 Nd2 0,26 >>Fritz 7 Nd2 0,31 >>SOS 4 Nd2 0,31 >>Ruffian 2.10 Nd2 -0,51 ***** >> >> >> >[D]1rb1n1k1/1r5p/p2p1p2/2PP2p1/1q2P3/1N1RNQ2/P5PP/K1R5 b - - 0 35 >> >> >>Analysis: 120 seconds >>PIII 700 Mhz - 32Mb Hash Tables >> >>Engine Best Move Relative White Score >>---------------------------------------------------- >>CM9000 ..Qa3 1.56 >>Shredder 5 ..dxc5 0,76 >>Fritz 7 ..dxc5 1.16 >>SOS 4 ..Qa3 1,10 >>Ruffian 2.10 ..dxc5 -0,70 ***** at first glance it see4ms in both positions black has rooks and Queens near the white king. It seems that Ruffian evaluates such kind of king_unsafety rather strong. Nothing unusual I would say. I'll test with some other engines though. regards Joachim
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.