Author: John Merlino
Date: 12:21:47 03/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 12, 2004 at 15:03:23, Christophe Theron wrote: >On March 12, 2004 at 15:00:31, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 12, 2004 at 14:22:29, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>Hi Sarah >>>A fantastic performance of Rufian 2.1.0 >>>Kurt >> >> >>11 Ruffian 2.1.0 : 2623 62 46 114 53.9 % 2596 37.7 % >>17 Ruffian 2.0.0 : 2602 37 56 150 49.0 % 2609 40.7 % >>21 Ruffian 1.0.1 : 2583 46 32 220 51.4 % 2573 38.2 % >> >>statistical error is bigger than the 40 elo >> >>I think that it is not a fantastic result. >>We even cannot be sure based on the result if there was an improvement since >>Ruffian1.0.1 >> >>Uri > >You could at least concede that it is likely that there is a significant >improvement. > > Christophe True enough. But when the difference between the ELOs is smaller than the margin of error, it's probably best to conclude nothing. Please don't get me wrong. Ruffian is a fantastic engine, and with a bit more testing and data points could very well be considered "top-tier". But with many people reporting/believing that v2 is NO stronger than v1, and the above showing only 40 ELO improvement, so far I must say that I am not convinced. jm
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.