Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:45:24 08/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2005 at 18:19:44, Peter Kappler wrote: >>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. Not at all. You underestimate the meaning of the number of games. You can't conclude anything for 50 games in a list with almost all with 2000 games and more. The listing is false not the degrees of confidence. > >>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. Not only FRITZ, all the other progs too. How is that possible if RUFFIAN was formerly so strong? > >> >>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. No this is wrong as I tried to explain above. > > >> 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. That is known but my question was directed to the apparent contradiction. If all the features are implemented why then there is no progress for progs like DIEP? Ok, all that asked for being short.
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.