Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 17:16:13 12/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1999 at 20:01:28, Chuck wrote: >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 Hi! As checked houndreds of times this is completely wrong. Play two-houndred games and the level should probably be accurate. Bertil SSDF
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.