Author: Chessfun
Date: 12:56:30 03/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 12, 2004 at 15:21:47, John Merlino wrote: >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. I think I have seen enough to say I am convinced there is improvement. Whether that is significant (Which I would consider 30+ points) is still debatable. A few losses in the reminaing games and it could still fall heavily. And also when I say I have seen enough I don't mean simply these current games. I include games I've played and watched at playchess and games I played during the Lokasoft Ruffian 2.0.2 and 2.1.0 beta period. 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.