Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 17:50:42 08/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2005 at 18:45:24, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. > It's 93 games, not 50. Perhaps you are confusing the error bars with the number of games played? Lets check back in a month and see how much the rating has changed. I'll bet it's within the range predicted by the current list. > >> >>>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? > The same reasoning applies to all the other engines on the list. If they are being developed actively, and Ruffian isn't, you should expect to see them slowly pull ahead. > >> >>> >>>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. > Maybe, maybe not. But it's not really so interesting to argue about our different definitions of "top-notch". > > > >> >> >>> 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. If you want my honest opinion about Vincent and Diep, I'll give it, but only in a private email... -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.