Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:24:59 01/05/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2006 at 17:28:15, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote:
>I think the SSDF is doing an excellent job and i am gratefull for all the work.
>
>Having said that, does eduard post suggest some future directions? Maybe future
>testing can make the Fritz sample of games more similar to the fruit sample
>(i.e., so there is no difference in hardware and oponents).
Statements like this come from a fundamental misunderstanding of the mathematics
involved.
> The current list has fruit significantly better than fritz9, but the CEGT list
>has them as similar, and all my (admitadly informal) tests has them as equal.
>Maybe as the number of games keep coming in, we will see the gap between fruit
>and fritz decrease?
THE SSDF RATING LIST 2006-01-03 1104075 games played by 274 computers
Rating + - Games Won Oppo
------ --- --- ----- --- ----
1 Fruit 2.2.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2852 35 -33 457 68% 2717
2 Fritz 9.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2819 32 -30 587 74% 2639
2819 + 32 = 2851
2852 - 33 = 2819
Within experimental certaintly, the SSDF list does not tell us which one of
these two programs is strongest.
CEGT:
All versions, adapted to Shredder 9 with 2750 ELO
# Name bayeselo 0052.15
(2005-09-29) ELOstat 1.3 Score Av. Op.
bayeselo Draws Games
ELO + - ELO + -
5 Fritz 9 2780 +14 -14 2768 +12 -12 63.8% 2674.3 30.0% 2236
7 Fruit 2.2.1 2779 +16 -16 2772 +14 -14 65.5% 2663.7 33.0% 1601
2780 - 12 = 2768
2779 + 14 = 2783
Within experimental certaintly, the CEGT list does not tell us which one of
these two programs is strongest.
Given that the tests are under VERY different conditions (time control, books
used, etc.) I find it quite interesting that the two placements are in complete
agreement (Fritz 9 and Fruit 2.2.1 are of about the same strength).
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.