Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:20:44 01/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2000 at 10:43:29, Graham Laight wrote: >On January 06, 2000 at 10:23:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>It is more than anecdotal. There is no contrary evidence at all, so far, other > >I don't agree - I think that the SSDF list represents "evidence", because they >have long experience of every level of play the computers have reached since >1984 or 1985. > What does the SSDF rating list have to do with whether a computer is at a GM level or not? You could add or subtract 400 points from every rating on their list, and things would still be just as valid according to the Elo formula. The 'spread' between two programs on the SSDF list is correct. The absolute value of the ratings are over-inflated. Or do you believe that a computer is really playing at 2700 and is in the top 10 in the world? I don't... >>than 'opinion polls'. Let's watch the Rebel games. That will be a reasonable >>guage... > >Certainly. Even better if the SSDF take up Ed's offer to test Rebel Century. > >-g That doesn't help a bit for the SSDF rating numbers. Their rating pool of players has nothing whatsoever to do with FIDE, so the ratings can't be compared at all. If they wanted, they could take rebel-10's eventual TPR as a real FIDE rating, then enter Rebel into the SSDF testing cycle, and when it finishes, reduce everyone's rating by X so that rebel's SSDF rating matches its TPR rating for the GM challenge matches. I think that X will be 200 points or more, IMHO.
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.