Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:49:08 12/12/99
Hi all,
As the issue of SSDF ratings, and their comparative value with USCF or FIDE
ratings, has been a recurring theme and a number of threads have sprouted
recently, I thought I'd share my opinion (self-plagiarized) as I think it is
relevant and might shed some light on the matter.
SSDF ratings: inflated or not?
Here's what I think: the ratings are not inflated in the least bit.
Sounds crazy doesn't it? But it's not. People get too caught up trying to make
these futile comparisons between SSDF ratings and human ratings whether USCF,
FIDE, or whatever. The point is, and it has been repeated very often, there
simply is no comparison. The only comparison possible is that both are generated
using Elo's rating system, but that's where it ends. Elo's system is supposed to
calculate, according to a point system, the probability of success between
opponents rated in that system. The SSDF rating list does that to perfection,
but it is based on the members of the SSDF only. If you put Fritz 5.32 on fast
hardware up against the Tasc R30 or whatnot, it will pulverize the machine. The
difference in SSDF ratings accurately depicts that. It has NOTHING to do with
FIDE or USCF ratings. The rating of Fritz, Hiarcs, or others on the SSDF rating
list depicts their probability of success against other programs on the SSDF
list, and that's it. It doesn't represent their probability of success against
humans because humans simply aren't a part of the testing. If you want to find
out how a program will do against humans then test it against humans, and then
you will find it's rating against them. The SSDF rating has nothing whatsoever
to do with that. As was pointed out, I believe the SSDF ratings pool is a pool
that is COMPLETELY isolated from all others and as such cannot possibly be
compared with them.
Albert Silver
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.