Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Which engine is stronger ? Ruffian 2.0.x or the latest Crafty compil

Author: George Tsavdaris

Date: 12:36:44 07/28/04

Go up one level in this thread


On July 28, 2004 at 12:41:40, Joachim Rang wrote:

>On July 28, 2004 at 12:24:58, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On July 28, 2004 at 12:01:43, Joachim Rang wrote:
>>
>>>On July 28, 2004 at 11:49:18, Keith Kaplon wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have no data on this. I remember Dr. Hyatt's machine won an impressive
>>>>computer tourney on ICC not too too long ago.
>>>>
>>>>I'm trying to set up an analysis program in Linux - and so far the only engines
>>>>I have which work in Linux are Crafty and Ruffian 2.0.2 and Ruffian 2.1.0 (and
>>>>of GNU chess).
>>>>
>>>>Any data much appreciated :-)
>>>
>>>on equal hardware most probably Ruffian.
>>>
>>>Here is a tournament when Ruffian scored slightly ahead of Crafty 19.12:
>>>
>>>http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/his7thedition.html
>>
>>I think that it is dependent on the hardware that you use.
>>
>>You can also give both programs equal quad opteron(hardware that Crafty used to
>>win the ICC tournament) and I am not so sure that Ruffian is better.
>>
>>It is not fair to talk about the case that both programs get a single processor
>>and ignore the case that both program get 4 processors(the fact that Ruffian can
>>use only one of them is not the fault of Crafty).
>>
>>Uri
>
>
>oh come on Uri. Why play the pedantic nitpicker and highlightening _every
>inaccuracy_ which occur in some posts?

:-)
 I like his style and i am almost like he is. To be the most accurate possible
gives me amazing satisfaction and anyway it's my way of thinking. That comes
from my love for the "mathematical logic". I bet he is the same and that he is
good at mathematics. Statements like this is a "rather strong engine" must make
him feel sick like me.
 But since we can't define everything , so we can't be totally accurate, it
doesn't matter after all for me to be accurate at all. And i wonder by being
accurate and pedantic, if at the end we gain something........


>
>Of course I should have written "on equal single-processor-hardware". Guess
>what? This formulation crossed my mind for a milisecond but I dropped it since I
>thought, that it is too obvious to mention it and only a deliberate nitpicker
>would highlighten it.
>
>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.