Author: Graham Laight
Date: 07:05:51 01/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2000 at 08:42:30, Albert Silver wrote: >On January 06, 2000 at 19:47:10, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On January 06, 2000 at 17:20:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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... >> >>If the 'spread' is correct, then the absolute values must also be right - >>because the SSDF list is known to correlate well with FIDE ratings UP TO A >>CERTAIN LEVEL (though it is admitted to be 20-30 points too high). > >Oh? What level? Which program correlates to any FIDE rating? For that matter >which program has a FIDE rating to correlate to, or which human has a SSDF >rating to compare to his FIDE rating? The last time they correlated to human >ratings as far as I know was back in 1990 or so, when the Novag Par Excellence >was rated 1850 in France after testing it in 40 games at 40/2 against human >players and the SSDF had it at 1834 (something like that), and the Fidelity Mach >III was rated at 2036 in France (same conditions) and the SSDF had it at 1993. Thanks for this information, which I regard as supportive, because it shows that the SSDF had rated the computers quite accurately! Since then, they've had years of extra experience to help them grapple with the problems of "getting it right". >Of course, the SSDF also organized games against humans back then and included >these in the rating list. Still, there weren't any FIDE ratings below 2200 then >either. >You also mention that it was ADMITTED to be 20-30 points over-rated. Admitted >implies that someone is in possession of incontrovertible information. I don't >think the SSDF possesses ANY information to make such a statement. > >> >>I think that you are saying that, relative to the FIDE ratings, the spread is >>too great at the high end. >> >>If it is true that the SSDF ratings correlate well with the FIDE ratings up to, >>say, 2400 points (which probably is true), then what I think you are telling me >>is that, for those computers above 2400 on the SSDF list, the gap between them >>is too big, and that therefore the higher you get on the SSDF list, the more >>overinflated the scores are, relative to human players. >> >>>>>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 >> >>Agreed. > >I disagree. You will only be prolonging the problem and will eventually get back >to the situation we have now. Hence we have to try to make the best of what information we do have. >> >>>for the GM challenge matches. I think that X will be 200 points or more, IMHO. >> >>In my opinion, which is equally humble (of course!), Tiger's FIDE rating is >>probably about 2660 - I don't think that this is quite in the top 10. > >On what is your opinion based? My opinion is different but not based on any >scientific knowledge or testing. Merely my observation of it's play, and what it >knows and doesn't. If it's playing 2660, it's the most ignorant 2660 I ever saw. > > Albert Silver > 2666 = 2696 (SSDF rating) - 30 (to convert from SSDF to FIDE scale) If Tiger is ignorant, then so was DB in 4 of the 6 games it played against GK in '97 - but it still achieved an MPR of around 2900. Maybe ignorance is not so bad in a computer. -g
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.