Author: Chuck
Date: 17:01:28 12/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1999 at 09:06:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... I think it is very easy to prove that Robert is right here. It is very noticeable. I once played out a 40/2 match between a Mach IV and a Mephisto Polgar, the Mach IV one 10-2. The two machines are very close in strength, probably within 100-150 points. But playing many games and watching these two computers evaluate positions, it was evident that the speed of the Mach IV (compared to the Polgars 5 Mhz) gave it a big tactical advantage. Head-to-head this seems to be magnified. I played an old MChess against the Mach IV and it won 11-1. Wow, what results. The point is, when a progam plays another which is on significantly slower hardware, the faster program is going to win big and it's rating will be inflated. Two years later, when it becomes the one with slow hardware, it will be the one getting pounded, and it's rating will go down. I think at one time the Mach IV was on the SSDF list at around 2200, but late in it's life it dropped to below 2100. Chuck
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.