Author: Chessfun
Date: 15:35:18 06/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2001 at 17:52:54, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>On June 15, 2001 at 14:21:04, Chessfun wrote:
>
>>On June 14, 2001 at 05:34:55, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>>
>>>On June 14, 2001 at 02:49:18, Martin Schubert wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 13, 2001 at 18:32:45, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On June 13, 2001 at 17:56:08, James T. Walker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On June 13, 2001 at 16:14:33, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On June 13, 2001 at 11:20:20, James T. Walker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On June 13, 2001 at 00:01:19, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On June 12, 2001 at 22:50:01, James T. Walker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On June 12, 2001 at 20:54:16, stuart taylor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On June 12, 2001 at 18:41:58, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 12, 2001 at 14:48:10, Thoralf Karlsson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SSDF RATING LIST 2001-06-11 79042 games played by 219 computers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rating + - Games Won Oppo
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------ --- --- ----- --- ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 Deep Fritz 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2653 29 -28 647 64% 2551
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 Gambit Tiger 2.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2650 43 -40 302 67% 2528
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 Chess Tiger 14.0 CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2632 43 -40 308 67% 2508
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 Fritz 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2623 23 -23 968 64% 2520
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 Junior 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2596 20 -20 1230 62% 2509
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6 Chess Tiger 12.0 DOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2576 26 -26 733 61% 2499
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 Fritz 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2551 25 -25 804 58% 2496
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8 Nimzo 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2550 24 -23 897 58% 2491
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9 Nimzo 8.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2542 28 -28 612 54% 2511
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 Junior 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2534 25 -25 790 58% 2478
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Congratulations to Frans Morsch and Mathias Feist (and the ChessBase team).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Deep Fritz is definitely a very tough client. You cannot lead the SSDF list by
>>>>>>>>>>>>accident, and leading it for so many years in a row is probably the best
>>>>>>>>>>>>achievement of a chess program of all times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>If you want to sum up the history of chess programs for microcomputers, I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>you just need to remember 3 names:
>>>>>>>>>>>>* Richard Lang
>>>>>>>>>>>>* Frans Morsch and Mathias Feist
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Christophe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The roarng absence of the name Christophe, appears of course, in the signature
>>>>>>>>>>>of the post.
>>>>>>>>>>>But I have a little question. Does Deep Fritz have any advantage in the testing
>>>>>>>>>>>e.g. the fact that it already stood at the top, long before the recent GT even
>>>>>>>>>>>arrived on the scene, and so may have had an advantageous starting point?
>>>>>>>>>>>S.Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hello Stuart,
>>>>>>>>>>I believe that is a valid question. I would like to know the answer. I would
>>>>>>>>>>like to know if the SSDF "Zeros out" the book learning of say Deep Fritz before
>>>>>>>>>>starting a match with Gambit Tiger when Gambit Tiger is brand new? I still
>>>>>>>>>>think the SSDF list is quesionable because of the differences in opponents each
>>>>>>>>>>program has to face. I'm sure it's better than nothing but I sure wouldn't like
>>>>>>>>>>to hang my hat on a 3 point difference in SSDF ratings (or even 20 points for
>>>>>>>>>>that matter).
>>>>>>>>>>Jim
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I don't question the reliability of the list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It is the most reliable tool that we have to evaluate the chess programs. The
>>>>>>>>>difference in the opponents each program has to face does not matter from a
>>>>>>>>>mathematical point of view.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Year after year we can see that the list is reliable. Almost all objections get
>>>>>>>>>refuted, little by little. Of course it is not absolutely perfect, but I think
>>>>>>>>>it's damn good.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christophe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hello Christophe,
>>>>>>>>I think the thread got sidetracked but I disagree with your assessment of the
>>>>>>>>SSDF list. I agree it's not perfect and it's pretty good but.... I think its
>>>>>>>>too easy to make one program come out on top by selecting the number of games
>>>>>>>>played vs certain opponents. If you could play only one opponent and get a true
>>>>>>>>rating then there would be no problem. We all know this is not the case. Some
>>>>>>>>programs do better against certain opponents and worse vs others. So if you
>>>>>>>>play more games vs the opponent you do best against it will inflate your rating.
>>>>>>>> Of course the opposite is true. So if Program "A" plays its favorite opponent
>>>>>>>>while program "B" plays it "nemesis" more games then naturally program "A" will
>>>>>>>>look better even though they may be equal or even the opposite is true. This
>>>>>>>>becomes very critical when the difference in rating is only a few points in
>>>>>>>>reality. I'm not saying the SSDF does this on purpose but I'm sure they are
>>>>>>>>doing nothing to compensate for this possibility. In my opinion the best way to
>>>>>>>>do the SSDF list would be to make all top programs play an equal number of games
>>>>>>>>against the same opponents. That way the top programs would all play the same
>>>>>>>>number of games against the same opponents and the list would look like this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Name Rating Number of games
>>>>>>>>Program A 2600 400
>>>>>>>>Program B 2590 400
>>>>>>>>Program C 2580 400
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I cannot think of any real evidence that such a phenomenon exist. Can you
>>>>>>>mention amongst the top programs which program gets killed by what other
>>>>>>>program?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Has someone statistical evidence of this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But anyway, even if all program meet each other, I know some people will say
>>>>>>>that there is another way to bias the results: by letting a given program to
>>>>>>>enter or not to enter the list you have an influence on the programs it is
>>>>>>>supposed to kill.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's a neverending story.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christophe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hello Christophe,
>>>>>>You don't have to get killed or be a killer to change the rating by a few
>>>>>>points. The first program that comes to mind is ChessMaster. I believe that
>>>>>>playing a "Learning" program vs a non-learning program will add rating points to
>>>>>>the learning program with more and more games played between them. If this is
>>>>>>not the case then you could just play 500 games vs any opponent you chose and
>>>>>>your rating would be just as accurate. In any case this "bias" could be avoided
>>>>>>with a little planning.
>>>>>>Jim
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok, and what is wrong now, that favours program x or y?
>>>>>
>>>>>Bertil
>>>>
>>>>I doubt that the list favours a program. But I think your idea is to play 40
>>>>games in a match, so I wonder why not play exactly 40 games. Sometimes you play
>>>>more, sometimes you play less. I don't think it's a big problem playing 39 or 42
>>>>games. But it should be no problem playing the same number. Why I would prefer
>>>>this is the statistics. The best thing for getting a good statistics for ratings
>>>>would be playing a tournament like Cadaques: every program against each other
>>>>the same number of games.
>>>>
>>>>Regards, Martin
>>>
>>>Hi!
>>>
>>>Usually we tries to play 40 game matches but from the last list some matches are
>>>not finished (11/06 01). In the match Tiger against DF 17-17 or so, Tony
>>>received the new Athlon parts and of course he upgraded as soon as he received
>>>them! In some case the match could be shorter because of hard or software
>>>problems.
>>>
>>>Bertil
>>
>>Personally I agree with Christophe the SSDF is the most reliable tool
>>that is available for rating a program. Some can critique either method
>>or a specific but nothing else compares. It is as near perfect IMO as
>>testing a commercial program can be. Anyone who bothers to spend time
>>looking through the games knows it.
>>
>>Sarah.
>
>Hi!
>
>Thanks! When is your next update of the Chessfun-list? I (we) really looks
>forward to it!
>
>Bertil
Hi Bertil,
I plan to update monthly regardless of how many new games I add.
Currently I had one pc playing one hour game matches for the last two weeks so
as to get higher numbers of games from certain programs. Also Crafty 18-08 CB to
appear next along with CM6000.
Sarah.
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.