Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Fun Rating List........heading Fruity

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 09:02:58 11/05/05

Go up one level in this thread


On November 05, 2005 at 10:49:04, Robert Hollay wrote:

>On November 05, 2005 at 08:06:20, Chessfun wrote:
>
>> 32 Ruffian 1.0.1          : 2575   34  34   250    53.0 %   2554   37.2 %
>> 33 Deep Fritz             : 2574   22  22   625    54.0 %   2546   37.0 %
>> 34 Ruffian Leiden2003     : 2571   33  33   266    48.3 %   2582   38.7 %
>> 35 Hiarcs 8               : 2561   33  33   266    47.6 %   2578   39.5 %
>> 36 Junior 7               : 2561   24  24   594    49.1 %   2567   28.8 %
>> 37 Chessmaster 10000      : 2560   28  28   303    47.7 %   2576   47.9 %
>> 38 Ruffian 2.0.0          : 2559   37  37   210    46.4 %   2584   38.6 %
>> 39 List 504               : 2552   30  30   295    47.3 %   2571   43.1 %
>> 40 Gambit Tiger 1.0       : 2551   31  31   319    55.0 %   2516   33.5 %
>> 41 Chessmaster 9000       : 2548   37  37   206    46.8 %   2570   39.3 %
>> 42 List 512               : 2546   31  31   285    47.9 %   2560   41.8 %
>> 43 SOS 4 for Arena        : 2541   37  37   226    48.0 %   2555   33.2 %
>> 44 Deep Sjeng 1.5         : 2537   39  39   200    45.0 %   2572   35.0 %
>> 45 Deep Sjeng 1.6         : 2536   27  27   408    46.4 %   2561   36.5 %
>> 46 Fritz 6                : 2532   15  15  1228    52.7 %   2513   37.7 %
>> 47 Chess Tiger 13.0       : 2532   24  24   487    51.4 %   2522   41.3 %
>> 48 Ruffian 1.0.5          : 2531   38  38   210    41.7 %   2589   35.7 %
>
>It's interesting: Ruffian 1.0.1 is 53.0%, Ruffian 1.0.5 is only 41.7%!
>But nearly everybody says that Ruffian 1.0.5 is slightly better.

Most people did not say nothing  about it so I think that it is not correct that
nearly everybody says that 1.0.5 is better.

I guess that 1.0.1 is slighly better based on the data that I read including one
impressive result of 1.0.1 in Leo's tournament when 1.0.5 did not do so well in
the next tournament

http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/his3rdedition.html
http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/his4thedition.html

1.0.1 performed clearly better than Gandalf4.32 based on Leo's
results(difference of 17/100) when 1.0.5 scored only 2/84 better relative to
Gandalf4.32

If you use nimzo2000b for comparison then
12/84 of difference from 1.0.5 also seems to be smaller difference than
23.5/100 from 1.0.1


Uri



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.