Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:06:28 12/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1999 at 02:39:25, Bertil Eklund wrote: >On December 09, 1999 at 22:58:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 09, 1999 at 22:11:00, Len Eisner wrote: >> >>>The older programs on the SSDF list are underrated and the newer ones are >>>overrated. Why is that? >>> >>>Bob Hyatt's view is that the best of the current programs are about 2450. That >>>is at least 200 points less than their SSDF ratings. >>> >>>The older programs seem to be underrated by about as much as the new ones are >>>overrated. For example, the Fidelity Mach IV is only rated 2074 when it should >>>be over 2250. The old Novag Super Constellation is only 1731. I know it was at >>>least 200 points stronger than that. >>> >>>Len >> >> >>I don't think the mach iv was anywhere near 2250. It was at action chess >>(game/30/game/60) but not 40/2 >> >>What I think has happened is that newer programs blow older ones out, and >>artificially inflate the newer program ratings, and artificially deflate older >>program ratings... >> >>The older programs are not played against each other any longer, and the only >>way their ratings can go is down... > >Hi! > >There is no or very little inflation in the list. Everyone knows that todays >better players play a lot with computers and therefore can find the "wholes" in >there play (proved by you). I guess an experienced player earns 50-150 points vs >the one that haven´t played computers. One of the only later results is from >south-america where Hiarcs6, Rebel10 and CM6000 on P2-400 performed in average >2603 over 10 or 11 rounds. These matches with Rebel with very motivated >( prepared) players and double-increment time controls have nothing to do with >the normal way of achieving an established elo (in tournaments). I think Rebel´s >about 2500 under these circumstances is pretty fair. > >For the above most of the older programs haven´t moved much for years, but with >todays knowledge on chess-program they are over-rated to. > >Of course we should adjust the level of the list as soon as we have some proper >results. I think the list shows the difference between the programs in a rather >good way. Anyone can adjust the list to what he/she thinks is the correct level. > >Regards Bertil SSDF I wasn't very careful with my wording. I should have said "inflation with respect to the real FIDE rating scale." Ratings _within_ a specific rating pool are always right based on the Elo rating system. But SSDF ratings have drifted _far_ away from the FIDE scale. IE 2650 on the SSDF scale clearly is nowhere near 2650 on the FIDE scale...
This page took 0.02 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.