Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:14:25 04/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2000 at 10:37:22, James T. Walker wrote: >On April 10, 2000 at 16:37:24, Dann Corbit wrote: >>On April 10, 2000 at 16:12:03, James T. Walker wrote: >>>On April 10, 2000 at 11:24:18, blass uri wrote: >>>>On April 10, 2000 at 08:03:41, James T. Walker wrote: >>>>>On April 10, 2000 at 03:24:17, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >>>><snipped> >>>>>>Someone in the past stated that commercial programs are at least 100 rating >>>>>>points stronger than Crafty, so now we may ask: >>>>>>Where are the commercials??? >>>>> >>>>>************************************************** >>>>>What am I missing?? >>>>> >>>>>1 Fritz 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2721 39 -37 368 67% 2594 >>>>>8 Crafty 17.07/CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2624 46 -44 251 62% 2541 >>>>> ----- >>>>> 97 Points >>>> >>>>97 is not at least 100 >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Hello Uri, >>>I believe the difference is more than 100 points at blitz. Also 97 points has a >>>tolerance which means it could be more or less. Here are the top 9 entries from the list: Rating + - Games Won Average opposition 1 Fritz 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2721 39 -37 368 67% 2594 2 Junior 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2689 31 -30 565 68% 2557 3 Chess Tiger 12.0 DOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2671 33 -32 486 64% 2572 4 Fritz 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2654 34 -32 474 65% 2543 5 Nimzo 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2653 33 -32 478 65% 2545 6 Junior 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2626 35 -33 438 63% 2530 6 Hiarcs 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2626 35 -34 432 62% 2539 8 Crafty 17.07/CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2624 46 -44 251 62% 2541 9 Nimzo 99 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2623 40 -39 318 60% 2549 Within a single standard deviation, this means that the ELO of the programs is: 1. Fritz 6 (2760 - 2684) 2. Junior 6 (2720 - 2659) 3. CT 12 (2704 - 2639) 4. Fritz 5.32 (2688 - 2622) 5. Nimzo 7.32 (2686 - 2621) 6. Junior 5.0 (2661 - 2593) 6. Hiarcs 7.32 (2661 - 2592) 8. Crafty 17.07/CB (2670 - 2580) 9. Nimzo 99 (2663 - 2584) From this it is clear that even with a single standard deviation, crafty may be within a few ELO points of Fritz, and could even be stronger than all of the programs except Fritz. This gives a certainty of only about 2/3, even at that because we are talking about a single standard deviation. If we allow two standard deviations, Crafty could easily be the strongest program (or the weakest -- as you can see very easily, the uncertainty is great and very little separates the top programs). >>The point is that Crafty is >>>still behind the top commercial programs. There is no evidence to support this in the SSDF. >>>Because they only come out once each >>>year, Crafty appears to be catching up more quickly than it really is. Upon what evidence do you purport this vacuuous argument? Some real data please. >>>The >>>improvement in Fritz this time was really great. Crafty is still behind but >>>with Bob working overtime, it is slowly closing the gap. One thing for sure, >>>you can't complain about the price of Crafty. I really like Crafty in the >>>Chessbase interface. It seems that all the problems have been fixed as far as >>>Chessbase/Crafty goes. Crafty seems to score better using the Fritz book too. >> >>Since you have used "programs" it shows that you do not fully understand the >>publication by the SSDF. Within experimental uncertainty (which they do list), >>crafty is clearly as good as many of the commercial programs. >****************** >To tell someone that they don't understand something as simple as the SSDF list >is pretty silly. You are taking on an "Air" of a know it all. Well, you clearly don't understand it. You quoted the SSDF figure to support your argument and your 'explanation' shows that you don't know what the numbers mean. >In the above >case I was also talking about Blitz games. Yes. You did say that you thought the difference was more than 100 points at blitz. However, I seriously doubt that you have the same type of quality control that the SSDF does. Were all the crafty games played with the same version of crafty under identical conditions? >I have more than 11,000 games in my >database now played between some of the top programS. I am making my statement >based also on these games which I have watched. I believe my certainty about >Crafty's rating is slightly better than just the SSDF list alone. I doubt very much if this is true. However, I will admit is is possible that you are correct. I suspect that you cannot defend your position mathematically. >I have also >watched Crafty play on ICC/FICS using the quad vs Fritz/Junior. In my opinion >Crafty is still behind the top programS. I believe I'm entitled to my opinion >which is based on my experience. Of course. All opinions are equal. Mine is no better than yours. However, mathematics can put more weight upon our arguements than feelings can. > The list below has nothing to do with my >statement concerning Crafty's strength relative to the top programS so I will >just ignore it as irrelevant to the topic of discussion. [snipped]
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.