Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 05:45:34 02/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2004 at 06:39:00, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 28, 2004 at 06:09:33, Volker Pittlik wrote: > >>On February 27, 2004 at 16:22:07, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >> >>... >>>>It seems we agree here. >>> >>>Yes absolutly clear Volker! >>>I dont agree! >> >>I noticed with interest that you don't agree that I agree with Uri. I beg your >>pardon that I don't comment on that, but that would have nothing to do with >>computer chess and therefore would be off-topic. > > >I think that it is better if we start positive by things that I hope that all of >us agree about. > >We agree that Frank did not claim different results than the results of the ssdf >with ponder on and he used results with ponder off to give his opinion about the >strength of Ruffian. > >We agree that it was a mistake of Frank to assume that the result with ponder on >are going to be similiar to results with ponder off in his announcment when he >did not mention no pondering in his announcment about the strength of Ruffian. > >We agree that it may be interesting to know if there is a big difference between >results of Ruffian with ponder off and results with ponder on. > >Uri Hi Uri, this sound is OK for me, absolutly OK! I switched information with Per-Ola so far and he gave me an interesting information. But it's not easy at all. Maybe a hash error in combination with ponder. I am not a programmer and I have not enough time to test all. The group of testers is good and I hope Per-Ola can find the problem. Fact is that Ruffian is very very strong, much stronger as in my results, Leo results, SSDF results and this problem must be solved ... hope so! We have a good service and if Per-Ola find mistakes I am sure an update is the results. So the time will fixed the problem! 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.