Author: Len Eisner
Date: 10:22:30 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 08:49:08, Albert Silver wrote: >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 I understand the SSDF list accurately reflects the results of comp vs. comp testing – numbers don’t lie. But up until now, I (and most other people) assumed you could at least apply the relative SSDF rating differences to people. In other words, if program A is rated 2600 and program B is rated 2650, I assumed program B would play 50 points stronger against me. They may have been 2400 and 2450 respectively in FIDE terms, but I assumed the 50-point difference was correct. Now I am beginning to see that SSDF ratings do not reflect performance against humans – period. Going back to my example, program B could actually be weaker than program A against GMs, even though it is 50 points stronger in SSDF comp vs. com testing. I guess this is what Ed Schroder has been saying all along about Rebel. I need to think about this for a while. Len
This page took 0.01 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.