Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 22:21:52 10/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2001 at 01:18:29, Kevin Stafford wrote: >If you are commenting on how the ssdf's ratings compare to FIDE ratings, there >is no real sense of 'accurate'. The pools are entirely separate, and therefore >attempts at comparison between the two are meaningless. It is for this reason >that it is impossible for one list to be 'underrated', because the two lists >have nothing to do with one another. I think that this statement is a bit too strong. Surely, there is some correlation between the strength ratings on the two lists. We just have no idea what it is! I also would not go so far as to say that comparisons are meaningless -- just that the numerical value connections are unknown. An entity that is at the top of either list will be quite strong, and one at the bottom not so strong -- that much is obvious. >> I hate to open up a can of worms here, but it would seem that recent results >>suggest that the SSDF list is Pretty Accurate. Tiger performed at the 2700 level >>on hardware much inferior to that used by the SSDF. That fact may suggest that >>the List is Underrated. Deep Fritz result against the Veteran Grandmaster Robert >>Huebner adds further validity. I am not sure what Rebel's performance rating >>with Vanderwiel is, but I am sure it is over 2600, this achieved on hardware >>slower then that used by the SSDF. I commend the SSDF for doing an excellent >>Job, Perhaps more games against Humans will continue to collaborate their fine >>work. Maybe in the future SSDF will have to add points to the current list, >>instead of subtracting!
This page took 0.01 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.