Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 15:19:44 08/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2005 at 17:55:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On August 24, 2005 at 17:21:51, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>I don't see any aggression or hatred in his response. I made them ecause Tord is a longtime student at a university and he should know how to read. My number 14 was all too clearly an example and NOT a specific number with a particular meaning. > >Please let me make my own conclusions. I made them because Tord is a longtime >student at a university and he should know how to read. My number 14 was all too >clearly an example and NOT a specific number with a particular meaning. Also I >am as old as his father and he should show a minimum of respect. > Please let me make my own conclusions, too. I interpreted his reply differently. > > >> >>Tord has posted many original ideas in this forum and others. Just search the >>CCC archives and you will find plenty of examples. > >I remember it from the late nineties. But I wasn't asking for his internet ideas >but his ideas in his programs. With no answer. > > >> >>He's well on his way. 3 ELO behind Chess Tiger 15 in this rating list. >>http://www.cegt.de/rangliste/cegtall.html >> >>But you probably consider every program on this list a clone, so I imagine you >>will not be impressed. > > >No, but I must contradict your conclusion. That he's 3 points behind Tiger15. >Please read the nice articles by Heinz van Kempen who made clear how many games >should be played before anything could be said. GLAURUNG has much too little >games to be seriously compared with Tiger15. It's 50 games vs 2000. Makes no >sense. The errors bars are right there next to the rating. With a high degree of confidence you can say that it is between 2600-2700 on that list. Strong enough to be one of the top amateur programs. >But I see that you are really interested in such tests and therefore >please try to find answers to my questions. One of them is an old one about >RUFFIAN. When this program came out in its first version it was a sensation >because it beat FRITZ etc. What is your idea about why RUFFIAN has declined so >much now when it was almost among the leading best earlier ago? Could you give >me some reasons? I haven't followed Ruffian closely, but my impression is that a new version has not been released in quite a long time. That would certainly explain why recent versions of Fritz are pulling ahead of it. > >And again to Tord. How, if he's successfully implementing all the older stuff, >could it be that after an almost job of 10 years Tord isn't succeeding in > making a top notch program? What could be the reasons? Well, now it is my turn to contradict your conclusion. In what way is it not a top-notch program? Out of hundreds, maybe thousands of amateur chess programmers, his program is easily among the top 10. > If others like LIST or Jonny >need much less time to develop. The same among the commercial programs we have >the case of DIEP which is also always a long distance away from the top although >VD is a strong chessplayer. What are the reasons for such results? > Sadly, there seems to not be much correlation between a programmer's chess-playing ability and the strength of their engine. As Tord wrote in another post, programming talent and drive are the key factors. -Peter >Thanks in advance. > > > >> >>-Peter
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.