Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 12:35:50 01/04/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2006 at 07:06:23, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >Thoralf, > >our List is for me in future no longer acceptable! > >Fritz 9 played 11x against Opponents with 450 MHz and 1x against 200 MHz (3-1 >against Fritz 5.32). > >Fruit 2.2.1 but played much more against opponents with 1,2 GHz and only 3x >against 450 MHz. > >That are not egual conditions and hard for Fritz 9, then he must win about 90% >need he hold the first place. > >But 90% is not possible. No program can win 90% on 1,2 GHz against good >opponents with 450 MHz. > >I seems You know this. > >In my Opinion I say: by SSDF forever! > >Eduard. Hi Eduard, sorry but I do not agree with you. I think that you should consider that a more reliable rating is based on about 1000 games and I am sure the SSDF will reach an equal level of competition for all programs approching that no. of games If you test a new program only against new engines you will have a wrong data as they may have been tested against these programs by their competitors before making tham available and therefore scoring overall better than against a more wide competition. After all the rating is with + and - as there is a possible error margin...the lowest the no. of games and the highest is this margin. SSDF people know what they do as they have many years experience so let them do it in the way they want and they will do it correctly as they nearly always did (I cannot forget the Fritz 5 without autoplayer exception). If there is a discrepancy on SSDF and CTG to me the correct one is SSDF as I always said...I always said this no matter if we are first or not like in this list. I think we all have to be grateful for the huge and professional work made by SSDF! Sandro
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.